Full text of "Proceedings, Volumes 16-17"

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non- commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at http : / /books . qooqle . com/

f I

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by Google

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH.

VOLUME XVI.
(CONTAINING PART XLI.)
1901.

The responsibility for both the fads and the reasonimjs in papsrs publislial
in the Proce&linqs rests entirely ivith tlteir authors.

London : -*

KKOAN PAUL, TKKNCH, THUBNfiR and CO., Limitkd,
CHARTN(i CROSS ROAD, W.C.

1901.

[The Rujht* of Translation and Reproduction are reserve*/. ]

Digitized by

PUbLICLl i_ K A !

299637

APTOR, L< vr\ A-D
TIL OLr. JNLaT IC

R 1904 L

7 I •

• • •

v • • ••• • * <

Digitized by

Google

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

THE SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH.

INDEX TO VOLUME XVI.

(PART XLI.)
190b

Articles brought to Sittings for Identification 23, 48, 307, 323, 338, 367, 370,

371, 373-5, 377-80, 384-91, 394, 397, 479, 497-8, 648
"Aunt Nannie," Chief References to 27, 43 8, 61, 62, 69-74, 76, 80, 81, 85,
132, 133, 146, 171, 172, 192-3, 210, 232-3, 240,310, 331,
342-3, 365, 400-3, 407, 421, 449, 451, 459, 460, 463,
469-70, 478-81, 483, 493, 496, 519, 524, 526, 528, 529

Automatisms 238-41, 259, 260

(See also " Spiritistic Hypothesis " — Characteristic Phrases.)
„ Normal Automatic Errors ... 238-40

B., Miss, Experiments in Identification, 616

BM Miss O., Experiments in Identification 553

B., Mr., Experiments in Identification 583

B. f Professor, Experiments in Identification 586, 588

Bourne, Ansel, Case of 271, 635

BramweJl, Dr. Milne, On Subliminal Appreciation of Time 154

C, Professor, Experiments in Identification 565, 567, 583

Caird, Dr. E., On Kant's Theory of Methods of Communication from

Discarnate Spirits — 243

Carruthers, Mrs. Eliza, Chief References to, 27, 47, 80, 81, 85, 90-5, 100, 132,

146, 192, 193, 310, 314, 315, 317, 469, 470, 478,
491, 496, 519, 524, 528

,, „ Evidence as to Incidents Communicated, 353, 354, 355, 528

„ James (Uncle Clarke) {See Communicators. )

Cartesian Conceptions of the Soul 225, 259

Communication Through a Tube, Experiments in 18, 624

Communications, Analysis Showing Proportion of Truth and Falsity in 118-21

Classification of Chief Incidents 131-33

„ Statistical Summary 115-23

I Digitized by CjOOQIC

ii Index to Volurtie XVI.

Communicator, Mental Condition of — while Communicating ... 249, 643
„ and Sitter, Possible Effects of Relationship between 122, 123,

267,258

Communicators, Chief References to :—

Carruthers, James, 17, 26, 29, 64, 76, 90 5, L46, 173, 174, 192,
193, 222, 314, 315, 317, 353-5, 363, 422-23, 428, 431.
444-6, 450, 459, 484, 504 5, 513, 528, 529, 643, 647, 648
Hyslop, Anna, 17, 27, 96, 105, 108, 147, 205, 209, 307, 331, 358,

421, 425, 451, 482, 502, 644, 646
„ " Charles," 17, 23-5, 27, 94, 100, 147, 184-91, 205,
206, 307, 309, 310, 313, 316, 330, 350, 431, 440,
450, 455, 462 5, 513-7, 518, 645, 646, 647

„ Martha Ann {Mrs.) 21, 26, 306, 308, 431, 458

„ Robert, 12, 17, 22, 26, 28-47, 48 93, 97, 109, 112, 131 33,
137, 160, 170, 189, 190-214, 221-38, 257, 308, 313, 316-22,
324 44, 347, 348, 351, 352, 354-62, 370 5, 377-9, 380-9.1,
397-416, 418-27, 429-38, 440-1, 443-5, 448-56, 459, 460-3,
468-75, 478-81, 484, 485, 490-536, 643-9
MeClellan, James, 17, 26, 64, 65, 77, 108, 109, 146-7, 258, 445,
446, 450, 463-6, 470-3, 513, 520-1, 629, 536, 647
Robert Harvey, 63, 74, 95, 97, 108, 145, 164, 167,
205, 211, 223, 231, 258, 427-9, 433, 442, 443, 494,
505, 508-10, 514, 515, 518, 520-5, 532, 536, 646
Pelham, George (" G. P."), 15, 26, 73-4, 113, 155, 179, 181,
184-6, 188-9, 208-14, 235, 263, 264, 266, 300, 305, 429, 435,

440-3, 468, 479, 481-6
{See also Trance Personalities— Imperator, Phinuit, Rector, &c.)
Controls of Mrs. Piper. {See Trance Personalities and Communicators.)
Cooper, J., R., and S., Chief References to 51-4, 111, 112, 132, 137, 169,

208, 386, 394, 397, 398, 410-3, 420, 445, 452-4,
492, 497, 499-501, 525

D., Mrs., Case of 33, 271, 474, 475

Dana, Dr., Case Recorded by 271

Dearborn, G. S., Experiments in Identification ... 590

Delboeuf, Professor, on Subliminal Appreciation of Time 154

Dice, Dr. J. P., Chief References to 94, 102, 103, 459, 460, 463, 517

„ „ Evidence as to Incidents Communicated ... 329, 356, #T7

Difficulties and Objections to the Spiritistic Hypothesis 242

„ ,, Argument of Idealism, The 246-7, 259, 260, 261,

265, 285-8, 290

„ „ Bearing of Earlier Reports upon ... 250-1
,, Clairvoyance and Telepathy at a Distance 126,250-6
Identity and Independence of the Trance Per-
sonalities 262-8, 273-80

„ „ Mistakes and Confusions 285-8

Objection from the Nature of Proof ... 244-7
„ Relation of Secondary Personality to the

Spiritistic Theory 280-5

,, ,, Suggestion as an Explanation 12, 247, 248

„ „ Telepathy and Secondary Personality 268-73,280-5

Triviality of the Incidents 248-50, 284, 285-8

Digitized by Google

V V,r to Volume XVL

iii

' ' Doctor. " (See Trance r ci oonali tiee. )

Dramatic Play of Personality. (See Spiritistic Hypothesis.)

Douse, Mr,, On Automatic Errors 238

Dying, Consciousness of the ... 36-7

Edmunds, Miss L., Note as to the Arrangements for Sittings 345

Elder, David, Chief References to 109-1 1, 521, 522

„ Orville, Evidence as to Incidents Communicated 522

F., Dr., Experiments in Identification 579, 598

F., Mr., Experiments in Identification 557, 558

'* Fire " Incident The [See Incidents.)

Floumoy, M., The Case of Helene Smith 267

Fraud, Considerations of the Possibilities of 5 10, 124, 291, 298, 299

G. , Professor and Mrs. , Experiments in Identification 609

Goodrich-Freer, Miss (" Miss X.") Experiences of 202, 271, 547

H., Professor, Experiment* in Identification 576

Hallucinations, Relation of, to Secondary Consciousness 283, 284

Hathaway Family {See McClellan, John.)

Hodgson, Dr., Relation of, to Professor Hyslop's Experiments, 6-9, 13, 14, 17, 19

„ Sittings held for Professor Hyslop 31,119,367

44 Hymn " Incident. (See Incidents. )

Hypnotism, Analogy between Hypnosis and Apparent Condition of Com-
municator while Communicating 249, 271, 643

Memory, Conditions of 249, 271, 635-42

„ „ Revivals of, under .. 635-42

Hyslop Family, The : —

Anna. (See Communicators. )

Prediction of her own Death 358, 451

Charles. {See Communicators.)

Family, Evidence of Living Members of, to Incidents Communicated

35, 42, 50, 53, 57, 81, 82, 347-61, 363, 364, 332, 383,
392, 398-9, 406, 408, 409-16, 498-503, 507, 512, 516-20,

522, 531, 532, 534

Frank, Evidence as to Incidents Communicated 351, 352, 383, 392,

398, 409, 414, 415, 498, 512, 516
„ References to. (See Communicators, Robert Hyslop.)
George, Chief References to 23-5, 27, 29, 42, 44, 62-5, 67 , 69, 132,
133, 163, 170, 172, 307, 310, 316, 317, 337, 394, 401, 404-5,
423, 454, 461, 462, 491, 492, 493, 502, 512, 516, 531, 645

„ Evidence as to Incidents Communicated 502

HetUe, Chief References to 68, 71, 75, 101, 103, 104, 164, 207, 212,

434, 435, 440, 444, 462, 471, 473

Margaret Cornelia, References to 21 , 27, 310, 349, 514

Martha Ann. ( See Communicators. )

Digitized by Google

Index to Volume XVI.

" Nannie " (Mre. Robert), Chief References to 47, 54, 55, 63, 69-74,
146, 162, 207 10, 240, 342, 343, 365, 387-8, 406, 419,
421, 424, 439, 441-2, 460, 478-80, 483, 484, 486, 487,

495-6, 499, 501, 525, 526

„ (-Sec " Aunt Nannie. ")
Robert. (See Communicators. )

(See also Carruthers, Eliza and James, and McClellans, The)
Hyslop, Mrs. James, Experiments in Identification with ... 553, 555, 596
„ Professor James Hervey, Ph.D., A Farther Record of Observa-
tions of Certain Trance Phenomena 1

I., Dr. V., Experiments in Identification 556

Identification of Personality, Experiments in 18, 169, 268, 537

Characteristic Differences between, and Mrs. Piper's Phenomena 542

Errors of Interpretation 546, 557, 560, 583, 592, 596, 599, 600

„ Memory ... 169,544,545,554, 556,559,569,572,578,579,

588, 589, 593, 603, 605, 612, 613

Method of Experiments 538-40

Mistakes and Confusions 540, 551, 609, 615, 624

Summary and Analysis 540, 552, 553

Identity, Personal —

Criterion8of 158, 159

Proof of, the Key to the Whole Problem 246, 247, 290-1

Trivial Incidents, The Test of 248, 537-623

(See also Spiritistic Hypothesis, Characteristic Phrases and
Dramatic Play.)

' * Imperator. " ( See Trance Personalities. )

Incidents in the Communications, Classification of Main 131-3

„ Fire Incident 34, 35, 133, 324 5, 364, 371-3, 430, 497, 503

„ Hymn 56, 87, 133, 166, 249, 389, 413

,, Munyon and Hyoiuei— (and details of Illness)— 35-9, 87, 131, 132,

327-30, 336-8, 356, 360-2, 364-6, 381, 384, 388,
391-3, 397, 410, 413, 418, 420, 497-9

Organ 82, 83, 89, 131, 132, 133, 491, 492, 529-31

Swedenborg 31, 131, 166, 169, 341, 361, 365, 368, 370-1

" Tom, the Horse," 65, 133, 170, 423, 502

J., Dr., Experiments in Identification 580

J., Mr., Experiments in Identification 563

James, Prof., Experiments with Mrs. Piper 8, 9, 17

Janet, Prof., Hypnotic Researches of 269, 271, 272, 279, 287

K., Professor, Experiments in Identification 576

Kant, Conception of Communication with Discarnate Spirits ... 243, 261
Kyle, Mr., Evidence on Incidents Communicated 535, 536

Lang, Andrew, On the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper 9

Leaf, Dr. Walter, Experiments with Mrs. Piper 8, 17

Le Baron Case, The 154

Lodge, Dr. Oliver, Experiments with Mrs. Piper ... ... 8, 17, 228-9, 274

Lum, R. E., Professor Hyslop's Hypnotic Experiments with 635

Digitized by Google

Index to Volume XVI.

w,fll&r M., Miss, Experiments in Identification 616

MM M., Mr., Experiments in Identification 580

UttUfi. M., Mrs., References to 17,18,202,370,379,380,437, 458

Pi.&iS Marvin, Dr., Experiments in Identification' « .. 547, 559

McClellan, George, Reference to. (See Communicators— R. H. McClellan.)
„ Harvey, Chief References to ... 421, 422, 425, 491, 505-6, 523
„ James. (See Communicators.)
I, „ John, Chief References to 66, 97, 101, 102, 109, 110,111, 263, 431,
n* 438, 439, 443-6, 450, 471-3, 504-7

. i 511,513,520-1,535
,, Lucy. {See Communicators — R. H. McClellan.)
„ Robert Harvey. (See Communicators.)

McWhood, Mr., Experiments in Identification 558 9, 565, 579

Memory, Attempt to recover through Hypnosis 635

„ Illusions and Lapses of Normal... 214-20, 228-30, 507, 544-5, 554-6,

559, 569, 572, 578, 679, 588, 589,
593, 603 5, 612, 613

Mitchell, Dr. S. Weir, Sittings with Mrs. Piper 183

Many on Company, Letter from 414

,, Incident. (See Incidents.)

Myers, F. W. H., Experiments with Mrs. Piper 8, 17

„ „ On Problems of Personality 271

Nannie. (See " Aunt Nannie," and Hyslop, Mrs. Robert.)

Newbold, Professor W. Romaine, Experiments with Mrs. Piper 9

Newuham Case, The 154

Noopathy, Definition of the Term 125

Norton, Professor, Sittings with Mrs. Piper ) 183

Osborne, Miss, Experiments in Identification 555

P., Professor, Experiments in Identification 588

Parapathy, Definition of the Term 125

Patrick, Professor G. T., on Some Peculiarities of Secondary Personality 164

Peirce, Professor, Sittings with Mrs. Piper 183

Pelham, G. (" G. P.") (See Communicators.)
Personality. (See Identification of, Experiments in.)
Personality, Problems of —

Alternations of 154

Memory, Conditions of 635

Secondary 152-4, 177, 241, 249, 262-4, 271-80

Dramatic Play of 176

(See also Trance Personalities.)
Pierce, Dr. (See Dice, Dr. )

Piper, Mrs., A Further Record of Observations of the Trance Phenomena

of, by Professor J. H. Hyslop 1-649

Plato, on the Nature of Knowledge 233

Predictions, A Child's, of her own Death 358, 451

„ Mediuraistic 109,110

Prince, Dr. Morton, A Case of Multiplex Personality ... 267, 269, 279
*' Prudens." (See Trance -Personalities.}

Digitized by Google

vi Index to Volume XVI.

Q., References to 380

Quotations bearing on Mental State of Communicator when Communicating 643

" Rector. " (See Trance Personalities. )

S., Miss, Experiments in Identification 572

Sidis, Boris, Qn Suggestion 154, 271

Simons, T., Evidence of, in Experiments with R. E. Lum 636-42

Sittings with Mrs. Piper, Detailed Records of 297*536

Slate- Writing, Alleged Phenomena of 14

Spiritistic Hypothesis, Discussion of —

Argument for, General Statement of ... 4, 16, 158, 260-2, 289-91

Automatism 238-41

Consciousness and Memory, Unity of 158-76, 184-90, 198, 220-1, 293
Synthetic Unity of Incident* 170-6, 184-90, 198, 293
Dramatic Play of Personality 176-214, 219, 224, 231, 236, 237, 255, 256,

263, 268-70, 277-85, 292, 293, 312, 441
„ Characteristic Phrases, &c, 22, 29, 34, 40, 44-6, 53, 54,
57-9, 61, 75, 88, 89, 106-8, 132, 133, 167-9, 189, 204,
223, 235, 236, 238-41, 307, 313, 314, 317, 318, 320-1,
328, 333, 334, 340, 348, 349, 351, 352, 373
397-400, 416, 420, 430-3, 437, 470, 474, 494
„ Differences between Mrs. Piper's and that of Ordinary

Secondary Personality 152-6, 255, 256, 263, 268-85

Intermediary Element 150, 151, 156, 179, 180, 235

Mistakes, Confusions, and Irrelevancies 155, 180, 202, 212, 214-38, 242,

319, 330, 408-9, 423, 436, 437

Re-construction of a Message 408-9

See also Difficulties and Objections 242

Statistical Summary of True and False Statements 1 15-23

Subliminal Consciousness of the Lapse of Time ... 154

"Swedenborg" Incident — {See Incidents.)

Table of Contents 1

Telepathic Hypothesis, Discussion of—

Argument, General Statement of 124-57, 295, 296

,, Special Arguments Against 137-57

Classification of Incidents bearing on 131-3

Magnitude of its Application 139-46, 154-6, 256, 292-6

Main Points bearing on 54, 69-74, 83, 94, 98-100, 104, 124-57, 161-3,
168, 177, 180, 185-90, 194-204, 207-11, 214-38, 242,
249, 251, 253-6, 268, 288, 289, 291-7, 318, 319, 321, 337,

361, 365, 377, 386, 429

Mistakes and Confusions 142-6, 214-21

personal Identity, Absence of, in Ordinary Telepathy 126, 136, 168
Secondary Personality and Telepathy, Combination of 152, 268-73,

291,292

Selective Element in the Communications 137-42

Telepathy from the Dead, Indications of 126-8, 137, 280-2

„ from the Living, Terms Suggested to Express 125

* Tom. the Horse " Incident. {Sec Incidents.)

I Digitized by Google

I Index to Volume XVI. vii

Trance Phenomena, Certain. A Further Record of Observations of, by

Professor J. H. Hyslop 1

Conditions of 10, 13, 303, 304, 311-2, 322-3, 368, 375,

382, 390, 396, 407, 418, 426, 436 7, 446 7, 456-7, 466 7,

475 7, 486-7, 496-7

Personalities, The, Chief References to—

"Doctor" ... 201,267,376

"Imperator" and "Hector " 15, 48-9, 51-2, 67, 73,
74, 113 5, 145, 155, 177-85, 194, 196-9, 201, 207,
209-13, 231, 234, 235, 240, 241, 255, 262-7, 272,
273, 299, 304, 311-3, 321, 324, 334, 335, 367-70,
375-7, 379, 381, 384, 391, 393, 395, 396, 417, 418,
426, 437, 447, 457, 458,465-7, 475-7, 485 9, 496,

497, 499, 644-7

" Phinuit " ... 10, 16, 127, 138, 180-2, 228, 251, 254,
255, 262, 263, 266, 272-5, 297

"Prvderut" 49,267,381

„ Mental and Moral Characteristics of 180

(See also Communicators, " 6. P.")
Consistency of 48, 49, 51, 52, 67, 73, 74, 113, 144, 145,

155, 177-84, 262-7, 447-8
„ Contrasted with Normal Secondary Personality 152-6,

263, 268-85

Van Hcevenberg, H., Evidence in Experiments with R. E. Luni ... 645

W., Mbs., References to 369, 370

Wireless Telegraphy not analogous to Trance Communications ... 139, 140
Wood worth, Mr., Experiments in Identification 590

X., Miss— (See Goodrich-Freer.)

Digitized by

Digitized by Google

oonsTTEisnrs-

PAGK

PART XLI.

A Further Record of Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.

By Professor James Her vet Htslop, Ph.D.

Table of Content* 1

Chapter I. Introduction 4

Chapter II. General Account of the Facts .... 20

Chapter ITT. The Telepathic Hypothesis 124

Chapter IV. The Spiritistic Hypothesis 158

Chapter V. Difficulties and Objections . .242
Chapter VI. Conclusion . . .289

Preliminary Note to Appendices . . 297

Appendix I. Detailed Record of Sittings 303

Appendix II. Record of Sittings, continued . 367

Appendix III. Record of Sittings, concluded . 417
Appendix IV. Experiments on the Identification of

Personality 537

Appendix V. Experiments in Communication through

a Tube .624

Appendix VI. Experiments in Hypnosis 635
Appendix VII. Quotations bearing on the Mental Condi-
tion of the Communicator while

Communicating .... 643

Digitized by

ERRATA.

P1K 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, and 623— for "Miss C." read "Miss TV'
p. 621, line 45— for "Miss G." read "Miss B."

Digitized by Google

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH,

A FURTHER RECORD OF OBSERVATIONS OF CERTAIN
TRANCE PHENOMENA.

By James Hervey Hyslop, Ph.D.
(Professor of Locfic and Ethics in Columbia University, New York.)

Hypothesis of fraud, pp. 6-9 ; Conditions and precautions in arranging the
experiments, pp. 10-13 ; Description of the mode of experimenting and
making the record, pp. 13-16 ; Explanation of the general discussion,
pp. 16-17 ; Explanation of the contents of the Report, pp. 17-19.

Chapter II. — General Account of the Facts, pp. 20-123 ;

Preliminary remarks, pp. 20-21 ; Analysis of the first sitting, pp. 21-26 ;
Summary of communicators1 statements, pp. 26-116 ; (1) Robert Hyslop,
pp. 28-86; Recapitulation of same, pp. 86-90; James Carruthers, pp. 90-94;
Recapitulation of same, pp. 94-96 ; Robert McClellan, pp. 96-99 ; Re-
capitulation of same, pp. 99-100 ; Charles Hyslop, pp. 100-104 ; Recapitulation
of same, pp. 104-106 ; Annie Hyslop, pp. 106-108 ; Recapitulation of same,
p. 108 ; James McClellan, pp. 108-111 ; Recapitulation of same, p. Ill %.
•John McClellan, pp. 111-113 ; Statistical summary, pp. 116-123.

PART XLI.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Chapter I.— Introduction, pp. 4-19 ;

J. //. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part1

Chapter III.- -The Telepathic Hypothesis, pp. 124-157 ;

Definition of telepathy and explanation of the problem, pp. 124-128 ; General
conditions to be met by telepathy, pp. 127-131 ; Classification of incidents
bearing upon the hypothesis of telepathy, pp. 131-133 ; Limitations of tele-
pathy as a scientific hypothesis, pp. 133-137 ; Special arguments against
telepathy, pp. 137-157 ; (1) Selectiveness of the process, pp. 137-139 ; (2)
Magnitude of its application to all living consciousness and memory, pp.
139-142 ; (3) Inconsistency of its mistakes and confusion with the assump-
tion of its easy access to all living memories, pp. 142-146 ; (4) Differences
in clearness of the communicators, pp. 146-147 ; (5) Inconstancy of the
communications and changes of communicators, pp. 147-149 ; (6) Incon-
sistencies in its assumptions, pp. 149-150 ; (7) Variations of the pohit de
repere, pp. 150-151 ; (8) Reproduction of what would be expected on the
spiritistic theory, pp. 151-152 ; (9) Necessity of combining various other
processes and assumptions with telepathy, pp. 152-154 ; General difficulties,
illustrations, and summary, pp. 154 -157.

Chapter IV.— The Spiritistic Hypothesis, pp. 158-241 ;

The unity of consciousness in the communications, pp. 158-176; The general
unity of the phenomena, pp. 160-170 ; Synthetic unity of individual inci-
dents, pp. 170-176 ; The dramatic play of personality, pp. 176-214 ; Nature
of the argument from dramatic play, pp. 176-177 ; The place of the trance
personalities in this play, pp. 177-182 ; Analysis of the dramatic play in
the first sitting, pp. 184-190 ; Illustrations of dramatic play in the later
sittings, pp. 190-211 ; Summary of George Pelham's interruptions, pp.
211-213 ; Argument from confusion and error, pp. 214-238 ; Relation of
mistake and confusion to telepathy and other assumptions, pp. 214-221 ;
Illustrations, pp. 221-238 ; Automatisms, pp. 238-241.

Chapter V. — Difficulties and Objections, pp. 242-288 ;

General nature of the difliculties, pp. 242-244 ; Objection from the nature of
"proof," pp. 244-247; Influence of suggestion, pp. 247-248; Objection
from the triviality of the messages, pp. 248-250 ; Clairvoyance and tele-
pathy at a distance, pp. 250-256 ; Objection from the limitation of com-
municators to friends and relatives, pp. 256-258 ; The conditions of existence
after death, pp. 258-262 ; The identity and independent personality of
Imperator and Rector, pp. 262-268 ; The combination of telepathy and
secondary personaUty, pp. 268-273 ; Unity of the Phinuit and Imperator
regimes, pp. 273-280 ; Relation of secondary personality to the spiritistic
theory, pp. 280-285 ; Objection from the alleged mental degeneration of
spirits, pp. 285-288. ;

XLI.J Ohwvations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 3

Chatter VI.— Conclusion, pp. 289-296 ;

Reasons for scepticism, pp. 289-290 ; Magnitude of the theories alternative
to spiritism, p. 290-292 ; Contradictions and weaknesses of the telepathic
hypothesis, pp. 292-294 ; Tentative character of the conclusion, pp. 294-296.

APPENDICES AND NOTES, pp. 297-645.

Appendix I. — Detailed record of first four personal sittings, pp. 297-344.
Latest Notes to Appendix I., pp. 344-366.

Appendix II. — Detailed record of Dr. Hodgson's five sittings in my
behalf, pp. 367-407.

Latest notes to Appendix II., pp. 408-416.

Appendix III. — Detailed record of last eight personal sittings, pp. 417-536.
Latest notes to Appendix III., pp. 497-536.

Appendix IV. — Exj>eriments on the Identification of Personality, pp.
537-623. «

Appendix V. — Experiments on Communication through a Tube, pp.624-634.

Appendix VI. — Experiments in Hypnosis, pp. 635-642.

Appendix VII. — Quotations bearing on the Mental Condition of the Com-
municator while Communicating, pp. 643-645.

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

A FURTHER RECORD OF OBSERVATIONS OF CERTAIN
TRANCE PHENOMENA.

By Professor James H. Hyslop.

(This paper is a sequel to those in Proceedings, Vol. VI., pp.
436-659 ; Vol. VIII., pp. 1-167 ; Vol. XIII., pp. 284-582; Vol. XIV.,
pp. 6-78.)

The problem which presents itself in the present record of experi-
ments with Mrs. Piper is simply that of personal identity, and not any
of the larger claims of the doctrine of "spiritualism." Both the
question of the supernormal and that of general "spiritualism" are
thrown out of court, the one on the ground that it has to be assumed
to escape the other, and the second on the ground that its wider

1 It seems to me desirable to warn American, and perhaps some English, readers
against a misapprehension of the pretensions in this report. I presented some of the
facts of this report last spring (June 4th, 1899) before the Cambridge Conferences
(Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Though I was extremely careful in that address not to
make any final choice, any more than I do now, between the alternative theories
which I stated, the facts aroused the usual newspaper interest. I was interviewed
by reporters to whom I absolutely refused to tell my facts or any settled opinion*.
But it was immediately published and quoted in the newspapers all over the United
States, and in some parts of the United Kingdom, that I proposed to "scientifically
demonstrate the immortality of the soul within a year." There is no foundation for
the attribution of such a claim to myself. The facts are these : I was seen by only
four or five reporters. I refused absolutely to tell them a single fact in my sittings,
but referred them to previous Reports and talked only of the frauds and illusions
connected with the subject. In response to the question whether I proposed to
scientifically demonstrate immortality, I was extremely careful to say, "No, I do
not," and stated the alternative theories between which we have to choose. I knew
too well the a priori standards which characterise the conceptions of those who think
they know what a ** scientific demonstration " is, and not only did not claim any such
efficiency for my facts, but was emphatic in disclaiming any such pretensions. But
knowing what impressions widely-circulated statements produce, and that even men
who claim to possess scientific intelligence either accept newspaper reports as true or
snatch at them for the sake of using a standard for heaping ridicule upon those
against whom they have no facts to produce, I have also been careful to state to the
scientific public in two of its most important publications in America {Science*
November 10th, 1899, Vol. X., p. 695 ; The Psychological Review, January, 1900%
Vol. VII., p. 84) just what I have indicated above. I make no claims to "scien-
tifically demonstrating " anything, not even my facts. I have given a preference for
the spiritistic theory in explanation of my alleged facts, in order to force the issue on
an important investigation and in order to devolve upon those who have not accepted
any supernormal phenomena at all the duty of rescuing me from illusion.

CHAPTER I.

Introduction.

J. H. Hyslop.

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Plienoviena.

aspects are not a part of the problem at issue in these experiments.
What " spiritualism " is in its general aspects I need not care, as there
are not data in my record to throw any light upon its complexities as
usually conceived. The issue that is presented here is simply whether
spiritism or telepathy from living persons exclusively1, is the more
rational hypothesis to account for the facts. Nor need I enter into
any specific definition as to what shall be meant by spiritism. It is
first only a name for some other hypothesis than telepathy and intended
to account for the unity and intelligence of the phenomena concerned.
It is next only a name for the continuity of the stream of conscious-
ness which once passed for a person. Consequently I use the term
consistently with either pantheistic monism, or atomistic or monadic
monism. Whatever theory we entertain regarding the individuality of
man, the alternative hypothesis to telepathy, which is here called
spiritism, must be independent of the question whether the stream of
consciousness recognised as personal identity shall be either a mode of
the absolute or an individual persistent centre of its own activity.
Consequently, I shall have in mind, when using the term, the concep-
tion of a surviving consciousness and personal identity which is
absolutely necessary for the establishment of anything like a true
.spiritism, and thus wholly eliminate all conceptions that are associated
with the idea of phenomena originating from some cause merely
different from the normal and voluntary self. The latter idea
goes no further than secondary personality, as it is so well known.
The former excludes all intrinsic connection between the subject
through which the phenomena are apparently obtained and that which
is their alleged source. Whether the real source is a surviving soul or
not may be discussed without any preconceived theory of what a soul
must be. Spiritism, therefore, as an alternative explanation to
telepathy, is nothing more than the question whether the brain of the
medium is adequate to account for the facts. All other problems may
be postponed until we know more than we do now regarding such
phenomena.

. In fixing these alternatives, however, I am told that I should
include the possibility of fraud, which is simpler than either of the
others. My reply is that I shall not discuss that hypothesis at
length. I consider it as having been excluded from view as much
as ten years ago, and no one except those who have resolutely remained
ignorant of the Society's work in general, and who have not taken
the pains to acquaint themselves with the very special precautions
in regard to this matter in the Piper case, would compromise his

1 1 shall throughout this Report use the term " telepathy " to denote a process
between living persons only. (See footnote, p. 124.)

Digitized by

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

intelligence with that accusation without giving specific proofs of it.
For the special benefit of that class, I shall refer it to the record which
shows what means were taken to eliminate this resource for explana-
tion. (Proceedings, Vol. VI., pp. 437-440, 444-447, 558-560, 615;
et al. Vol. VIIL, pp. 1-9 ; Vol. XIII., pp. 284-5, and Vol. XIV.,
pp. 7 and 50-78.) Nor is it necessary to resent any insinuations that
we are duped, until those who are possessed of so much intelligence
without any previous study of this special instance can produce specific
evidence that the subject of our investigation exhibits the qualities and
engages in the kind of work that must be supposed in order to meet the
case. It is easy to say " fraud " and suggest any number of imaginable
methods of deception, as it is known and practised in most that passes
for spiritualism. But it is quite a different thing to indicate the exact
kind of " fraud " necessary to reduce the character of a given case.
Those who are at all acquainted with the conditions and nature of the
Piper phenomena, and who are not willing to excuse their indolence by
an appeal to an explanation for which they have no evidence, will very
quickly discover that there is only one kind of fraud even conceivable
in the case, and that is the employment of detectives for obtaining infor-
mation. This method will undoubtedly account for the cases with
which the public is usually entertained, but any attempt to apply it to
the present instance in detail, taking adequate consideration of the
content of it, will be confronted with assumptions that are about as
enormous as the spiritistic theory itself. I am not questioning the
value of scepticism in this direction, but only insisting that it be
intelligent and ready to accept the logical consequences of the supposi-
tion that it makes. The accuser does not stop to think of the
magnitude of his hypothesis when applied to both the quality and
quantity of the facts under the conditions involved.

But it is not this alone that eviscerates that suspicion of its perti-
nence. We might well admit that both quality and quantity would be
vitiated by the existence of detective fraud, if that suspicion could be
legitimately directed against the subject of our experiments. But in
spit** of the care with which the Society's publications have stated the
condition* under which all arrangements are made for experiments,
i v mptutg Mrs. Piper from all responsibility for security against sus-
picion, not even the scientific public has yet been intelligent enough
to discover that it is on an entirely wrong scent. It ought to be
« I ;u i ■ fiven the most dull person, who must bear the suspicion of
Eraudj when Dr. Hodgson interposes between the experimenter and
* Piper, and when he, with the rest of us, subordinates the
ititi) value of any experiments otherwise conducted. The situation
nidi, as the most cursory examination shows, that the notion of
ud cuiinot be entertained without implying the complicity of Dr.

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 7

Hodgson. Now Dr. Hodgson is not under the slightest obligation to
prove his own honesty, or that he is not a fraud himself. Hence it is
the duty of the sceptic to prove that there is collusion and dishonesty
on Dr. Hodgson's part when any charge is made against Mrs. Piper.
Members of the Society assumed the duty to examine into her relation
to the phenomena, and having satisfied themselves of her innocence, Dr.
Hodgson has chosen to shelter her behind his own responsibility, so that
the man who wishes to cling to the suspicion of fraud must accept without
wincing this responsibility for proving his suspicion. The time is past
when we can indulge in the cheap accusation against Mrs. Piper, which
tries to throw the burden of proof upon us who announce the value of
our results. But when it is Dr. Hodgson who is the starting point of
the experiments, critics must accept the challenge to investigate him, or
turn their objections to his conclusions in another direction. They
cannot stand idly by and demand proof for honesty when it is their
duty to prove dishonesty. If we were dealing only with Mrs. Piper,
the case might be different, but, as it is, we can safely leave to critics to
make good against Dr. Hodgson the alternative to the hypotheses of
telepathy and spiritism.

In regard to Dr. Hodgson's relation to the sittings generally, it will
be important for the reader to know that he is not always present at
the sittings that he has arranged for, and that some of the best com-
munications have come to persons who, at the former period when the
control of Mrs. Piper was not stringent, arranged for themselves and
went to her without the knowledge of Dr. Hodgson at all, and reported
to him afterward (Cf. Professor Nichols' case, Proceedings, Vol. XI I L
pp. 374 and 534). At present, in spite of his control of all arrange-
ments for sittings, he is often absent from whole series of them, and
the fact makes no difference in the content of the communications. In
mine I insisted on his presence, because I was not familiar with the
automatic writing and did not wish to waste time in learning to read
it. Dr. Hodgson acted as stenographer, so to speak, copying at the
time much of the automatic writing, and noting all that was said, or
done by both of us and by Mrs. Piper's hand. Any attempt on my
part to do this without experience would have resulted in much loss of
time and increase of confusion in the "communications," owing to the
necessity of repeating until I could decipher the writing. But even
then Dr. Hodgson was several times sent out of the room by the trance
personalities, and his absence showed no effect on the contents of the
"communications," except perhaps to improve that feature of them
affecting their relevance, though it took more time for me to read
the writing and to obtain a given quantity of material. For
the occasions on which Dr. Hodgson was sent out of the room
and was not present the reader can consult the following references

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

to the Appendices and detailed records. (Appendix I., pp. 305-306,
306-308, 309-310. All the best part of this sitting, in so far
as content is concerned, came while Dr. Hodgson was out of the
room. Appendix III., pp. 420-421). The reader can see for himself
that in all the instances the " communications " were not interrupted
either in manner or matter, except so far as I was the cause and so far
as supersensible causes are assumed, so that no affirmation of their
entire dependence upon his presence can be made. This is, of course,
far truer of others than myself, as he was so often not present even in
the house, and the sitter was unknown to Mrs. Piper.

Nor is this all, taking the whole case into account. Professor
William James, of Harvard University, exercised more or less super-
vision over Mrs. Piper's trances and introduced unknown sitters as
early as 1885, two years before Dr. Hodgson ever saw the shores of
America. And, in fact, it was Professor James that made the appoint-
ment for Dr. Hodgson's own first sitting. Professor James says of
this year, 1885, "I visited her (Mrs. Piper) a dozen times that winter,
sometimes alone, sometimes with my wife, once in company with the
Rev. M. J. Savage. I sent a large number of persons to her, wishing
to get the results of as m&ny first sittings as possible. I made appoint-
ments myself for most of these people, whose names were in no instance
announced to the medium." (Proceedings, Vol. VI., p. 652.) A favour-
able report of these experiments by Professor James was published in
the spring of 1886 (Proceedings of the American S.P.B. pp. 102—
106) one year before Dr. Hodgson came to this country.

Further, Mrs. Piper saw a large number of sitters during her visit
to England in 1889-90, while Professor James and Dr. Hodgson were
both in this country, and several English gentlemen were responsible
for the appointments there, especially Professor Oliver J. Lodge,
r.K.S., Dr. Walter Leaf, and Mr. F. W. H. Myers. (Proceedings,
Vol. VL, pp. 436-447, 558-568).

All this implies that we cannot assume fraud without supposing
that there has been a conspiracy of it in the Piper case, involving not
only the above-named persons, but also many others that could as
easily be mentioned. This insinuation must be made good by any
man who suggests the possibility of fraud on the part of anyone con-
nected with the case. T am myself not exempt from this accusation if
a man chooses to make it, and one of my "scientific" colleagues
frankly says that he reserves the right to believe, and that he would
believe, as an alternative to fraud by Mrs. Piper, that I have lied
about the facts. I am not competent to disprove such a theory, but I
have shaped this report with the distinct purpose of inviting this
charge. Nor does all this imply that I admit the possibility of fraud
on the part of any of the persons named. On the contrary, I do not

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 9

admit that any such thing is possible in the case, because I consider that
it was throtcn out of court as much as ten years ago for all intelligent
num. But I allude to it here, first, to show that I have been alert to
all the issues likely to be raised in this problem, and, second — accept-
ing a man's right to raise the question where his conviction is involved
— to emphasize the fact that the present situation devolves upon him
who entertains such a hypothesis the duty to furnish specific and
adequate evidence for it. Professor J ames says on this point (Psycho-
logical Review, Vol. V., p. 421) : "Jhe * scientist/ who is confident of
* fraud ' here, must remember that in science, as much as in common
life, a hypothesis must receive some positive specification and determi-
nation before it can be profitably discussed ; and a fraud which is no
assigned kind of fraud, but simply * fraud ' at large, fraud in abstracto,
can hardly be regarded as a specifically scientific explanation of
specific concrete facts."

In addition to this, when it comes to accusing Mrs. Piper of fraud
without specific proofs, Professor James also says in the same refer-
ence : " Dr. Hodgson considers that the hypothesis of fraud cannot be
seriously entertained. I agree with him absolutely. The medium has
been under observation, much of the time under close observation, as
to most of the conditions of her life, by a large number of persons,
eager many of them to pounce upon any suspicious circumstance for
fifteen years. During that time not only has there not been one single
suspicious circumstance remarked, but not one suggestion has ever been
made from any quarter which might tend positively to explain how the
medium, living the apparent life she leads, could possibly collect infor-
mation about so many sitters by natural means." (Cf. Professor
Newbold, Proceedings, Vol. XIV., p. 7, and Mr. Andrew Lang,
VoL XV., p. 45.)

This statement of the situation will make clear why I absolutely
refuse to discuss the theory of fraud. I say only so much as will force
the public to face the issue and to understand why I accept no obliga-
tions whatever to treat the suspicion of fraud seriously. If the reader
of this report will take the pains, he will discover that the care which
1 observed to keep all knowledge of my sittings out of the acquaintance
of every one except Dr. Hodgson alone was undertaken distinctly with
the purpose of showing clearly that every accusation or suspicion of
fraud must accept the implied complicity of Dr. Hodgson, and make
thus good, or treat the problem of these experiments with proper
respect I also ignore the question regarding the genuineness of the
trance; as that has been adequately attested by the proper persons,
though I was careful to satisfy myself of this fact, not from any
scepticism on that point, but because my duty as an observer required
that I be able to give a reason for the belief. I can also say that

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[pakt.

whatever suspicions existed in the Phinuit1 days regarding this question, ^
they are no longer applicable to the condition which I observed. I am
willing to add also that, assuming that fraud is eliminated from Mrs.
Piper's part in the acquisition of the facts in the record, I should not
find it necessary to lay much stress upon the genuineness of the trance,
as even the supraliminal communication of such facts as I have in my
record would not lose in spiritistic suggestiveness by that circumstance.
The only value in establishing the genuineness of the trance after
removing the supposition of fraud is the fact that we simply make it
more difficult for the common mind to explain the incidents on any
normal grounds. This advantage, however, is more than offset by the
fact that the genuineness of the trance opens the door wide to all the
possibilities of the subliminal, which may include unconscious fraud to
any extent without implicating the primary personality in any
responsibility whatever for it. Consequently 1 do not treat the
issue of the trance as the most important one, or as in any way crucial,
but as valuable only in limiting the number of factors to be considered
in the problem. The only reason for investigating the trance at all, in
this or other cases, is that it was alleged and the test of honesty partly
depends on it ; but where no pretence of a trance is made, there is no
reason for demanding that it shall occur, unless we find that it is
actually necessary for desired results. The question of fraud is prior
to this in its importance, and having shown adequate reasons for
dismissing it from consideration, I pass directly to the main problem.

It will be necessary to explain briefly the conditions under which
the experiments were performed, as this will serve the double purpose
of making the results more intelligible to the reader who cannot witness
the performance and of indicating the precautions taken, which will
dispose of ordinary objections and show the proper incidence of respon-
sibility for the value of the record. The arrangements for my sittings
were made only through Dr. Hodgson, and with special care regarding
secrecy. The following statements will make the whole case clear.

(I) N»i one except Dr. Hodgson and my wife was to know that I
w«> to have sittings, and only Dr. Hodgson was to know of
i ii- arrangements. This plan was carried out in entire

beginning of 1807 Mrs. Piper's chief trance personality, so to speak,
■ »r the name of Phinuit. See Proceeding, Vol. VI., pp. 440, 448-450,
1 1 , pp. 50-54 tt a/.

rrangements for the sittings were not made with Mrs.

in her normal state, but with the trance personalities
• trance state.

rrangements for my sittings were not made in my name.

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 11

but in the pseudonym of " Four times friend," so that neither
the supraliminal nor the subliminal of Mrs. Piper could have
any clue to my identity (see Note 1, p. 344).

(4) When I went to conduct the experiments and before reaching

the house of Mrs. Piper, about two hundred feet from the
house and while in a closed coach, I put on a mask covering
the whole of my face, and entered the house wearing the
mask, met Mrs. Piper, and went on with the sitting in this
condition.

(5) When introduced to Mrs. Piper it was under the name of Mr.

Smith, which is the usual name by which Dr. Hodgson intro-
duces strangers. I bowed to her without uttering a sound, the
object being to conceal my voice equally as well as my face.

(6) In the whole series of my sittings Mrs. Piper never heard my

voice in her normal state, except twice when I changed it
into an unnatural tone to utter a sentence, in one case only
four words, as explained in my notes.

(7) In the whole course of the sittings, also, I was careful not to
touch Mrs. Piper, and I never came into any contact with her
to render any muscular suggestion possible, except perhaps
half-a-dozen times when I seized the hand while writing to
place it on the writing-pad which it was escaping. Once, as in-
dicated in the notes, I held her head while she was straightened
in the chair in which she was sitting (p. 467). But at all
other times I avoided every form of contact that could even
make muscular suggestion conceivable.

{&) The record shows that the facts obtained were either without
any questions at all, or without questions calculated to suggest
the answers given. I was extremely careful to avoid verbal
.suggestion. I have tried to draw attention to any special
exceptions.

(9) During the writing I stood behind and to the light of Mrs.
Piper, in a position which concealed any view of me and my
movements absolutely from any visual knowledge of Mrs.
Piper, whether supraliminal or subliminal, even had her eyes
been open instead of closed in the trance. It was necessary
to take this position in order to be able to read the writing
as it went on.

The fourth, fifth, and sixth precautions were taken, because in
1**92 I met Mrs. Piper twice for a short time and had a portion
«f a sitting (see p. 297). I had been brought into the room
and introduced to her under a false name while she was in the
trance, but introduced to her after recovery from it under my

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[PAKT

right name. Hence the mask and concealment of my voice were
measures against any possible identification, but were taken much
more because I wished to be able to say so than because I felt any
imperative necessity for doing it after my study of the case. The mask
I kept on until the third sitting, when I felt it unnecessary to wear it
any longer, for the reason that at the end of the second sitting the
name and relationship of my father was given as Mrs. Piper came out
of the trance. T had to assume from that point that her subliminal
was aware of who I was, and further concealment from it was no longer
necessary. But T still preserved my precautions against any identifica-
tion by voice and muscular suggestion. I could rather safely rely upon
the fact that the lapse of six years and that I was now wearing a
beard would prevent visual identification, because I had a smooth face
in 1892 when I sat. I can attach no special value to the concealment
of my voice in the case after removing the mask, except as an indica-
tion of the general cautiousness with which I wished to conduct the
experiments. In spite of the assumption, however, that Mrs. Piper's
subliminal had gotten my name, I have no doubt that her normal state
never obtained any knowledge of my identity until after the news-
papers had published what I had been doing, and this was after the
close of my sittings. 8he displayed absolutely no curiosity regarding
me during the sittings, not even noticing me after the introduction on
the first morning, and only the necessity of assuming that her sub-
liminal knew my identity made further wearing of the mask useless for
evidential purposes.

As regards the seventh, eighth, and ninth statements, one of the
objects in my experiments was to test the influence of suggestion
by the sitters. T had felt myself so hard pushed for arguments
against the spiritistic theory that I tolerated in myself and others
the appeal to illusions of interpretation and suggestion, as a resource
against conviction until I could witness the phenomena at close
hand. In reading the Reports I feared that possibly some inci-
dents, or even a large number of them, quoted as evidence of spirit
communication, might have their force impaired by this suspicion.
My view at that time was based to some extent upon preconceptions
formed by my idea of earlier sittings with Mrs. Piper and imperfections
of the record. But both more careful reading and personal inquiry
showed that my preconceptions of imperfection were grossly exag-
gerated, and that my doubts had to rest upon another basis altogether,
namely, the confusions and errors. But, nevertheless, I wished to
study the phenomena at close range, and the result of the sittings was
to convince me that the hypothesis of suggestion was inadequate. I
lave tried by the fulness of the present record to give all others the
ame opportunity as myself to understand this feature of the problem. ,

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena, 13

It Ls not so easy to eliminate illusions of interpretation. We are
never free from their possibility until we secure such definiteness in
the facts that even a prejudiced reader cannot mistake their pertinence.
Even in my first sitting some of the facts stated were specific enough
for me to decide at once the question of their pertinence or impertinence,
and hence illusions of interpretation had their limits fairly well defined,
to say nothing of the mass of material in later sittings.

As this report will probably be read by some who are not familiar
with either the whole record of the case or the difference between Mrs.
Piper's mediumship and the modus operandi of other alleged "mediums,"
I shall briefly characterise the conditions under which the results are
obtained, so that there shall be absolutely no excuse for the reader to
study the present account with any erroneous preconceptions of what
is meant by Mrs. Piper's mediumistic performances. The first important
step in the study of her case is a definite conception of the exact way
the facts are secured, and a recognition of points of important
difference between this case and those which have determined the
popular idea of mediumship.

( 1 ) Mrs. Piper goes into the trance in the following manner. She

seats herself in a chair in front of a table, upon which are
placed two pillows for a head-rest when the trance comes on.
She may or may not engage in conversation while the trance
approaches. In my case she generally talked to Dr. Hodgson
about various domestic matters, the weather, etc. The
approach of the trance is characterised by various indications
as described in my notes at the beginning of each sitting.
Finally when the head falls upon the pillows, it is arranged
by Dr. Hodgson, or other sitter, so that the right side of the
head lies on the palm of the left hand and looking off and
away from the table upon which the writing is done. This
second table Ls at the right hand, and upon it is placed the
writing pad. Tn a few minutes after the trance occurs, the
right hand shows signs of animation and slowly moves toward
this table for the writing, when a pencil is placed between
the two fore-fingers and the writing begins.

(2) Mrs. Piper's normal consciousness, as the past evidence goes to
show, knows nothing of what she has done or communicated
in the trance. She also remains ignorant of the communica-
cations until they are published in some form, except, of
course, when a sitter chooses to tell her something, which I
need hardly say in my case was nothing. Hence we do not
have to reckon with any views of Mrs. Piper's in estimating

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[pakt

the nature and value of the results, so that the facts have t<>

be studied from the standpoint of the sitter or investigator.

(3) There is no mechanical apparatus whatsoever in the experi-
ments, except the writing-pad and pencil which you furnish
yourself. Hence there is no excuse for comparing the case t<»
slate-writing and cabinet performances generally. Absolutely
nothing of this sort is connected with the sittings and experi-
ments. They are conducted in open daylight, in a room
without any special arrangements for them, except the
tables as indicated, and this room, in so far as living persons
are concerned, might be any one that the sceptical inquirer
might wish to choose in any locality whatsoever, and not
confined to Mrs. Piper's home.

(i) In all cases of so-called independent slate-writing, that I
ever witnessed (which were clearly fraudulent), I was either
in the darkness or the phenomena were produced out of
my sight ; the slate-writing was done nominally by a spirit
directly and not by the hand of the "medium," and I
was not an eye-witness of the writing. But in Mrs. Piper's
case, in addition to the daylight and absence of mechanical
apparatus like slates or cabinets, the writing is done rm7>/y
with her own hand, and on paper and with a pencil of your
own furnishing. That is to say, we can actually see as
much of the modus operandi of the " communications " as
we can see of any normal human act. Nothing is concealed
from our view, except the physiological processes that are
equally concealed from us in our own writing as well as all
other human affairs.

{;">) The whole scientific and evidential importance of the results
thus gets its credentials and value solely from the content of
the 44 communications," and not in any special way from the
manner of obtaining them, except as detective frauds are
excluded from the matter.

(fi) T should also indicate briefly the manner of making the record.
Dr. Hodgson sat near the table on my right where he could
see the writing as it proceeded. This he copied, reading it in
a low voice as an indication to the trance personality that it
was intelligible, or sometimes with a tone of interrogation and
doubt which would be followed either by the word 44 Yes
sometimes written out, or assent by the hand, or by the repar-
tition of a word or phrase not rightly read at first.1 He wax

1 After I became more familiar with the writing I often made attempts to read
nloud portions of it instead of Dr. Hodgson.

Digitized by

xu] Observation* of Certain Trance Phenomena. 15

unable to copy the whole of the automatic writing at the time,
as it was necessary for him to Record his own or my questions
and statements made at the time and to describe certain
mechanical features of the process not expressed in the writing,
leaving room for the insertion of the omitted portions of the
writing afterward. When a question was to be asked or a
statement made to the " communicator," Mrs. Piper's hand
was spontaneously raised toward the mouth of the sitter who
addressed the hand, and it then immediately proceeded either
to present the message to the " communicator," often extend-
ing itself out toward some " invisible presence," or to write out
a reply. After the sitting was over, usually in the afternoon
of the same day, Dr. Hodgson and myself went over the record
together, completing the copy of the automatic writing. From
this record type-written copies were made and sent to the
printer. The printed proofs have been compared first with
Dr. Hodgson's copy, and then once more with the original
automatic writing, so as to secure the utmost possible
accuracy.

These facts will leave no excuse for any further misunderstanding
of the Piper phenomena, and ought to remove such misconceptions
of them as have been derived from the popular notion concerning
mediumship.

There is one other feature of the sittings which it is necessary to
describe in order to obtain a clear idea of their complexity outside our
positive knowledge. I have described above what we actually know
about the modiui operandi of the case. But beyond this there appears
to be a consistent regime in the process, for whose validity no one can
vouch until the spiritistic theory is sufficiently proved to make it
inherently probable. This regime is the action of the " controls," and
the little alleged coterie of spirits that are trying to communicate from a
discarnate world with the incarnate. We can describe this appearance
without vouching for its reality. But there appear to be several
persons or spirits having Mrs. Piper in charge for the same purpose
that animates our experiments. The chief of these are called by them-
selves " Imperator " and " Rector," and are assisted sometimes appa-
rently by George Pelham and two or three others {Cf. Proceedings
Vol XIII. pp. 407-412). Rector usually acts as amanuensis in the
writing. George Pelham acted as chief amanuensis at my first sitting.
Imperator seldom writes with Mrs. Piper's hand, but generally employs
Rector through whom to communicate. Usually also the communi-
cations that purport to come from other discarnate spirits are made
through'the amanuensis, or even through one or more other " spirits "

Digitized by

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

before the amanuensis obtains them for writing. All this, however, can
only be a help to the imagination in understanding the dramatic play
of personality in the record, ano! hence can have no direct value in the
estimation of the facts in relation to the problems of personal identity.

In describing the details of my sittings it seems to me admissible
to use the language conforming to the spiritistic hypothesis, and this
entirely independent of our final interpretation. The main justification
for this course lies in the fact that it is under the form of spiritistic
communication that the phenomena occur, and we should state the
case in terms of its own purport. Notwithstanding this, however, I
might have dealt with the facts in detail by adopting the hypothesis
of a secondary personality of Mrs. Piper, masquerading as " spirits,"
and fishing and guessing and filching telepathically from the minds of
myself and other persons the necessary data for this purpose. But
this hypothesis has not appeared to me at all probable as a satisfactory
explanation of the phenomena before us, especially as I neither see
the a priori necessity for assuming it nor admit the adequacy of the
empirical evidence apart from this case for its application and extension
to the degree required. I have been driven to the favorable considera-
tion of the spiritistic hypothesis, and instead of evading it as long as
possible throughout my report and resorting in a pedantic way to
circumlocutions for the purpose of preserving the impression of
cautiousness which I tried to maintain in forming my convictions,
I have decided to treat the sittings in general from the point of view
which I finally reached. But I intend to apply the spiritistic theory
throughout, not merely because it recommends itself to me as the best
one, but also because it seems to me of more importance to see how far
the application of this conception would throw light on the numerous
details to which many persons might be inclined to apply such
hypotheses as fishing and guessing on the part of the supposed
subliminal of Mrs. Piper. After all, however, I do not wish the
reader to lose sight of the fact that the consideration essential for him
to note is rather the possibility of the application of the spiritistic
hypothesis as a rational one, a position that I shall reiterate from time
to time in the discussion. He must not suppose that I am hc:e offer-
ing any demonstrable proof of its necessity for the explanation of my
own sittings. The evidence drawn from those indeed appears to
be objectively inferior in many ways to much that has already been
published in these Proceedings, especially in Part XXXIII., but in the
previous repoi*ts on the Piper case the records have not been dealt
with in detail from the spiritistic point of view, and the reader has
scarcely been able to judge how far that view appears to cover the
various minutne of facts, errors and confusions. Instead, therefore, of
seeking to point out what incidents might be explained on the

Digitized by Google

XLI.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 17

hypothesis of fishing, what on the hypothesis of guessing, what on the
hypothesis of telepathy, etc., I have tried to take the reader behind
the scenes, as it were, and to show what relations the different incidents
may suggest with the habits and experiences of the supposed real com-
municators. But while I shall here discuss only the results of my own
series of sittings, let me warn the reader once more that my conclusions
do not depend on those results alone. It is far otherwise. They are
the outcome of the study of my own record added to the evidence
offered by Professor James, Professor Lodge, Mr. Walter Leaf, Mr.
Myers, and Dr. Hodgson, superadded to the large number of various
and spontaneous experiences recorded in the volumes of our Proceedings.
The spiritistic hypothesis simply gives unity to a far larger class of
phenomena than that of the Piper records, and this additional class
remains inexplicable by the assumptions which we often indulge in
the Piper case. I offer, therefore, my analysis, not as proof, but as
legitimate interpretation of the record and the results of psychical
research generally. I am willing even to be generous to critics, and
to admit, for the sake of argument, that the spiritistic theory cannot be
proved in the sense that some appear to demand of a demonstration. I
am dealing here only with the probabilities which favour simple as
opposed to complex hypotheses, and hence am testing the consistency
of the former in a case which is but an additional specimen of our
work, and which is not treated as sufficient proof of itself.

In pursuance of the purpose just announced, I shall here enumerate
the communicators by name that figure in my series of sittings. There
is my father, Robert Hyslop, who is the chief communicator throughout
and who died on the 29th of August in 1896. Frequent communicators
were my brother Charles, who died a young boy at four and a half
years in 1864, and my sister Anna, who died at three years of age,
twelve days later. Also in several sittings apparently my uncle,
James B. Carruthers, communicated or made unsuccessful attempts
at times. He died on December 2nd, 1898, from an accident on
the railway. In the five sittings held for me by Dr. Hodgson while
I remained in New York my father was the only communicator, with
the exception that my sister Anna seemed to be present once. In
the next eight sittings, at which I was present myself, my father was
the chief communicator ; but in the course of them, in addition to all
that have been mentioned, my mother, twice by name, Martha Ann
Hyslop, who died in October, 1869, my cousin, Robert H. McClellan,
who died in 1897, and his father, my uncle, James McClellan, who
died about the beginning of 1876, were communicators.

There were no other communicators in my personal sittings except
the trance personalities, with an occasional message from the George
Pelharo of Dr. Hodgson's Report, and one from a person whom we call

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Mr. M. (p. 458) and who is not connected with me at all, but with one
of the other sitters. In Dr. Hodgson's sittings held in my behalf there
were several other communicators, but the communications regard-
ing them were not relevant to myself, and some of them were too
private for incorporation. The latter and some of the former are
excluded from the detailed record.

I shall now indicate the general method of procedure which has
been adopted and which is as follows. The Appendices I.-III. contain
complete records with explanatory notes of all the sittings, both those
at which I was personally present and also those which Dr. Hodgson held
in my behalf. Each Appendix is followed by further explanatory notes
embodying the results of later inquiries concerning statements made at
the sittings. Appendices IV. and V. contain accounts of experiments,
imitative in their character and made for the purpose of obtaining
light on certain questions involved in the Piper phenomena. Appendix
IV. deals with two of these questions, namely, the triviality of the
incidents which people naturally choose for the purpose of identi-
fication, and the quantity of evidence sufficient to establish the same
result. Appendix V. deals with the mistakes made in the trans-
mission of messages through an imperfect channel. Appendix VI. is
an account of a case which I think may serve to illustrate the state of
mind in which I believe the communicators find themselves when in the
act of communicating. Appendix VII. consists of quotations.

In Chapter II. of my Report I give a somewhat detailed account
of the facts in the record, together with such comments by way of
corroboration or otherwise as my latest inquiries enable me to make,
and after dealing with the group of incidents connected with each com-
municator in the record, I summarise briefly the results (pp. 28-123).
But although this lengthy account of the facts is intended to show the
unity of the case in a way that perhaps many readers of the Appendices
alone would not detect, it is not intended to be a substitute for the
detailed records. It seems to me impossible to obtain a proper concep-
tion of the issues involved without a most painstaking study of the
Appendices themselves, containing the detailed records. On this point
I make no concessions to the popular demand for a merely readable story,
but expect from those who claim to be intelligent a minute and patient
study of the phenomena, such as we demand in all scientific and philo-
sophic problems. We spend years, even generations, in the critical
study of Plato and Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, etc., and we think
ourselves repaid, though we fail to arrive at any dogmatically definite
conception of their doctrines. And this study is given to them without
regard to the question whether we agree with them or not. It suffice
to understand them. But in no case do we permit a man to approve
r criticise what he has not studied. Again, there is scarcely any limit

Digitized by Google

xll] Obseinxitions of Certain Trance Phenomena. 19

to resources, intellectual and financial, which have been expended in
the most patient study of Darwinism, which involves the gradual
evolution of human life. It ought not to be less legitimate, it ought
not to be less imperative, to study at least as thoroughly those phe-
nomena that purport to throw light upon the destiny of that life.

I therefore venture to think that our inquiry has reached such a
stage that no brief summaries of facts or conclusions can at all meet
the importance of the case. The problem is not one which the " man
in the street " who reads as he runs can be expected to solve either for
himself or for others. What the sources are of the statements made
at my sittings and in other analogous ways through other persons is a
question that certainly demands the most searching investigation into
their minutest details. With this in view I gave Dr. Hodgson's Report,
in conjunction with its detailed records, four very careful and critical
readings, yet I found that there were many points which I failed to
appreciate fully until after I had finished and studied- my own series of
sittings. Hence I have included in this Report and Appendices an
exceptionally large amount of detail involving description and comment,
with the hope of enabling the reader to realise to some extent the
significance of the sittings, which cannot be appreciated as fully as is
desirable without direct personal experience. Even my own mental
attitude at the time I have endeavoured to show by retaining in the
Appendices all (except three or four not affecting this issue) my original
notes which further investigation has shown to be erroneous, including
illusions of memory and interpretation that occurred to myself, and
especially the changes of opinion which fuller knowledge of the case
or clearer and later communications forced upon me. I have done this
also with a view to certain difficulties connected with the main problem,
as my own mistakes on various points appear to me to suggest a very
significant bearing upon what we should expect to find in the state-
ments by the communicators. I do not, of course, repeat these changes
of opinion in my general account of the sittings in Chapter II., except
when reference to them seems necessary to explain the proper signifi-
cance of the most important incidents.

So important, therefore, do I regard the detailed records that I
suggest to the student the propriety of turning to them immediately
after reading my general account in Chapter II., and before going on
to my discussion of the case in Chapters IH.-IV., where I examine
the application of the telepathic hypothesis (Chapter III.) ; of the
spiritistic theory (Chapter IV.) ; and after considering some special
difficulties that may be entertained in regard to the spiritistic theory
(Chapter V.), I express, in conclusion, my adoption, for the present at
leaat, of the spiritistic theory as the most satisfactory (Chapter VI.)
I now pass to my general account of the facts.

Digitized by

J. H. Hyelop, Ph.D.

[part

CHAPTER II.
General Account of the Facts.1

In summarising the facts in the record, I shall group them, as far
as this is possible, according to their subjects, treating together those
that occur in different sittings but pertain to the same incident. In
this manner we shall better be able to comprehend the collective force
of the evidence as it is represented in complex wholes. The first
sitting, however, I shall treat rather by itself, as it is evidentially
unimportant, and such value as it obtains comes chiefly from the
light that later incidents throw upon it.

Another reason for this isolation of the first sitting from the
summary of the others and for the mode of treating its contents is the
fact that my notes in the Appendices give no adequate account of its
possibilities. Until I had formed a better understanding of the
phenomena generally and of my later sittings in particular, I not only
assumed that this first one was evidentially unfit to interest the reader,
but also that the confusion was so great that I could not make any
use of it except for its dramatic play. In fact I treated it and would
treat it alone as absolutely worthless, and it will doubtless remain so
for the reader. But careful study of all the phenomena convinced
me that this judgment might be too harsh and that it could be made
quite intelligible, if not slightly evidential, by disentangling its threads
of suggestive possibilities. Instead, therefore, of producing an elaborate
system of notes explaining these possibilities in connection with the
detailed record, I have preferred to indicate here the results of my
latest study of the sitting, while permitting the reader any judgment
that he may be pleased to form regarding either my opinion of its
possible value or the suggestive import of its incidents. Hence I
separate the account from the summary of other sittings in order to
make clear the distinction that a critic may wish observed, though I
inn at great pains to indicate its intelligible possibilities, its unity with
later sittings and the interest of its dramatic play.

Bfat I must utter a special warning against misunderstanding the
method I have employed in studying the record. I have often
recognised the relevance of certain names and incidents, apparently

i In this chapter I frequently quote passages from the detailed records, but in
doing so I have not thought it necessary to reproduce in all cases the repetitions of
, etc., precisely as they are given in the Appendices. In the Bame way I have
abridged the extracts where such changes would effect greater clearness for the
moral student and aid in discussing the questions at issue. The reader, of course
»e always compare the extracts with the more complete statements of the detailed

ted.

Digitized by Google

XLi] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 21

making a determined effort to find significance where there is no
evidential value. I was induced to do this partly by the discovery
that many of the statements which have to pass as literally false are
so near the exact truth that they could not be construed as telling
against personal identity and partly by the desire to show such a
psychological analysis of the various situations and possibilities in
special cases, that even many technical errors might appear consistent
with the evidential matter, thus offering a possible alternative to
guessing and suggestion. In other words, I have endeavoured to supply
such information to the reader as will enable him to see for liimself
how far errors may be due to imperfect conditions for communication.
Compare Maltine incident (p. 418), and Munyon's Germicide (p. 391).

Analysis of the First Sitting, December 23rd, 1898.

The chief interest of the first sitting, then, from the point of view
above indicated, is the dramatic feature representing the process of
ascertaining either my identity or the proper communicator. After
the usual preliminaries at the beginning of the trance, such as
greetings, arrangements for future sittings, etc., the function of
amanuensis was turned over to G. P. in this instance, and Dr.
Hodgson was sent out of the room just as a lady claimed to be
present to communicate with me. Several pages of writing follow,
in connection with this attempt to "reach" me, that are full of con-
fusion so far as evidential matter is concerned, though intelligible as
dramatic play in the trying conditions for selecting the proper com-
municators. In the midst of this confusion the names Margaret,
Lillie, and Henry [I] were given, evidently by the lady who claimed to
" belong " to me as my mother (p. 306). Careful investigation shows
that there is no Henry, near or remote, among the direct family
connections. There is an interesting piece of contingency in the first
two names, as I had a sister by the name of Margaret, the oldest in the
family, who died when I was two years old, and another, my twin
sister, by the name of Sarah Luella (Cf. p. 331), at which Lillie might be
an attempt. But I cannot be sure of any relevance in either of them,
and the contingency deserves to be mentioned only as one of those
things that so easily mislead the ordinary inquirer into the recesses
of this subject. Whatever the theory to account for these phenomena,
it is evident that these names belong to the connections of the lady
claiming to be related to me. Assuming from the spiritistic point of
view that a number of persons were trying to " reach " me by shouting
all at once into the telephone, so to speak, we might interpret these
names as significant, excepting the name " Henry."

The communications that follow show confusion, though capable of
being disentangled by legitimate interpretation. The name "Alice"

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PABT

comes closely upon " Henry," but is immediately corrected to " Annie,"
which is the diminutive name of a deceased sister, though this relation-
ship is not here asserted by the communicator. In fact, it is not
possible to assume with any assurance who the communicator might be,
though it is probably the person who claims to be my mother. On
this assumption she is trying to give the names of the members
of the family with her, and the correction of the mistake of " Alice "
for " Annie " is possibly made by the latter herself. Immediately
following this I am asked if I remember anything about my
brother. I ask who he is, meaning that I want his name, and the
reply is . "I say, brother. I am your ... I know I am and
. . . " which might be either from this brother or the person
claiming to be my mother. I then asked : " When did you pass out 1 "
and got the answer : " Only a long time ago." This would be true of
both my brother and mother, while the " only " might be interpreted as
a word from the message " only a short time ago " of someone else,
possibly my father. This is apparent from the answer to my next
question, which was : " Any other member of the family 1 " The reply
was : " Yes, two. I have seen Annie and mother and Charles and
Henry." Whoever the communicator was in the previous equivocal
messages, it is apparent, on the surface at least of this last answer, that
it was neither my brother nor my mother. Hence seeing in the
sentence thus naming the members of the family that the communicator
was not my brother Charles, and, as I knew there was no Henry in the
family, I tried the dodge of pretending to believe that it was Charles
Henry, and asked if it was. The answer : " iVo, Charles," was very
pertinent and correct, as it excluded the Henry from consideration.
Thinking that I was not dealing with my brother, but with my father,
I asked the question : " Did he [Charles] pass out before you ? " and the
answer : " JVo, I did not hear, did you say before," was followed by,
" Yes, he did, some time before." The latter was correct, assuming that
it was my father. The allusions that follow to the trouble with the
head and heart would apply, as far as they go, to my father, and the
passage comes to an end with the odd statement : "I say, give me ray
hat." I learned later that this expression was characteristic of my
father (Cf. p. 313). I here presented an accordion for the hand tc
touch (for reasons that the reader will find explained in the history oi
the Piper case. See footnote, p. 307), but it did not prevent the conf u
sion, so that the communicator was supplanted by my brother Charles
apparently, though there is no positive assurance of this until th<
communication is stated in the first person of the one claiming to \x
my brother. But he in turn is almost immediately supplanted by i
lady. The statements about the ownership of the accordion depenc
for their relevancy altogether upon the question who is communicating

Digitized by Google

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 23

and this is not made clear. Apparently it was my father who had
referred just before to his suddenly passing out at last, to the trouble
with his head and heart, and said, " I say, give me my hat," and hence
assuming that it was he that said, referring to the accordion, — " this
was not mine but his. It belonged to George " (Cf. guitar incident,
p. 461), — we have two statements that are false, though it is interesting
to see that they are apparently corrected immediately and spontaneously.
But if my brother Charles said it, as he was evidently communicating
in the next sentence, the first statement would be true, supposing that
the pronoun " his " referred to the previous communicator assumed to
be my father. My brother's next and very definite statement, suppos-
ing that the original is rightly read as " my father," was exactly true
in all its details, namely, the ownership of the accordion, the implied
death of the owner, and the name of my brother. My statement that
" it belonged to someone else " is not suggestive of the facts, though it
might appear suspiciously near it. The strongest fact in the passage is
the statement or implication that Charles is the name of my brother.
Annie, or Anna, was the name of my sister, but I am not distinctly
told this, while I am left altogether to the contents of later sittings to
infer the possibility that the allusion to the trouble with the head and
heart, and to the want of a hat comes from my father. No indepen-
dent evidential value belongs to the passage. There is simply in it the
apparent groping about of inexperienced communicators to make their
presence known.

Following this episode G. P. wrote : " You will have to have
patience with me, friend, for there are three persons who are all
speaking to me at once. One is calling mother, and the other is
calling Charles, and the other is calling for you " (p. 308). The
communication from the lady that apparently came from the person
" calling mother " is clear-cut and definite. But not a name or a fact in
it has any relevancy to me or to my family connections. Dr. Hodgson
is then sent out of the room and G. P. writes : " I cannot keep the lady
from talking, neither can I keep the young man who claims to be
your brother. ' The reference to Edwards which follows, and which
has no significance to me, might be connected with the communicators
claiming to be my mother and brother and who disappear. At this
point the communication became relevant, and suggested my brother
Charles : " I had a fever, and they said it was typhoid. My throat,
I had a very bad throat, and it took me over here. And I did not
know any one before I left my body." It was true that Charles died
of a fever, but it was not typhoid. It was scarlet fever. I found also —
what I did not know at the time of the sitting, though I may have
heard it mentioned when I was a child — that he suffered with a very
putrid sore throat during his illness. I learn that this is characteristic

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

of scarlet fever, but I did not know the fact at the time of the
message. The statement that he did not know any one before he left
the body will depend for its truth upon its interpretation. If it means
that he did not know any one " in spirit " before his death, it is
perfectly true, as my sisters Margaret and Sarah died before he was
born. If it means that he did not know any of us or any person " on
earth " it is equivocal. If it means that he does not remember any one,
this might be true, as he was only four and a-half years old when he
died thirty-four years ago ; but if it means that he never saw or knew
any one, it would be false.

My brother continues : "I think I have been here a good many
years, and I do not know all of my . . . . which if it had
ended with "brothers and sisters" would have completed the truth,
as two brothers and a half-sister were born after his death. But I
interrupted with the question, " Have you seen mother ? " He
said, " She is here with me. She is all right. She came here after
I did." It is true that my mother died after this brother. I then
asked if he had seen anyone else besides mother, having in mind
my father, and the reply was, "Yes, I have. Do you remember
she had a sister who was in the body when I passed out ?
But she came here, too, and she came after mother." Every word of
this is true, both as to the facts and as to the time relations of their
occurrence ; but it was not reading my thoughts at the time. Only
one of my mother's sisters has died since she did in 1869. No answer
came to my request for the name of this sister. But he continued :
" Then there is another one who is here, and she is nearer to you than
all the rest of us, and she will soon be able to tell you all you would
care to know." This either means nothing or it might be a possible
reference to my twin sister, who died when she was four months old.
But she never comes to communicate, neither does my sister Margaret,
who died when she was two years old, and when I was only one
month old.

Then immediately follows : " Where is Will ? " This is the name
of one of my brothers still living, and was brought out in a most
unhesitating manner. The message, however, in which he states that
he is bringing some one here to communicate, and that she was the last
to "come here," is perfectly unintelligible.

At this point my brother is apparently interrupted, though I did
not suspect it at the time, by an attempt of my uncle to communicate,
who had died about a month before the sitting (p. 310). I surmise
this because of the two references "El . . . " (which becomes
Eliza, the name of this uncle's wife at a later sitting, p. 314) and
" Robertson," which was apparently intended for " Robert's son ,s
(p. 317). These two points came out later in connection with incidents

XLI.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 25

which obviously pointed to this uncle. I was also as much confused
here as the communicator.

But my brother resumes his messages where he left off for my
uncle (?), and I interrupted him with the question : " Time of year
passed out 1 " The answer was : " I think it was winter, because I
remember seeing it snow," As a fact, it snowed the day before and I
think on the morning of his death. I further asked where I was at
the time, and the reply was : "I think you were not with me. I do
not think I saw you at all before I came here." I was absent
on an errand when he died. The statement, however, can hardly
be interpreted as recognising this absence, but rather indicates
that he did not remember me, which is possible enough (see above,
p. 24). But why should telepathy put the matter in that form ] If it
be the answer that I wanted it might be called telepathic, and the first
part of the statement bears that interpretation. But the later part
puts another meaning on it, showing the natural point of view and
possibly the fact for the communicator, while this was contrary to
what was actually in both my supraliminal consciousness and my
memory ! I knew him well enough, but it would be natural for him
not to know me or to remember me.

After a second unimportant reference to my mother again in
response to my question about her, he suddenly asked me : " Well,
what did you mean by asking for George ?" Earlier in the
sitting I asked: "Have you seen George?" (p. 307), the name of
a brother still living, though I did not say he was living, but was
trying to make the communicator think that this person was on the
"other side." After my saying that I wanted merely to know if
he remembered him, he said : " Yes, but George is here. I say George
is not here." As G. P. (real name George) was the amanuensis, there
might have been some misunderstanding at first, on his part. When I
repeated the question : " Do you say George is not here 1 " in order
to see which statement was meant, the answer came : "I say he is
not, and I could not understand why you asked me if he was here.
Neither is he coming for awhile yet. He is well and doing well and
so be it." This was an interesting and pertinent statement, though it
is suggestive to see it in the mouth of my brother, when, if the
interpretation of the passage in which I asked the question first about
this brother George be correct, my father and brother were both
present (p. 308).

The name Corrie, which I was asked if I remembered, has no
pertinence; but if it had been Cora(6y.p. 452) it would have been more
important, as the name either of my aunt Cora or of my oldest sister
Margaret Cornelia, who was named after this aunt. (Cf. p. 350 and
Note 61, p. 514.) I asked, " Is it Mary," and the reply came : " I say

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PAKT

it is, and she is father's sister." My father's oldest sister, who died
before I ever knew her, was called Mary Amanda. I never heard the
name Mary applied to her, but always heard her called Amanda, and
this not often. The reference to Elizabeth, possibly as my mother's
sister (though the statement can as well refer to the Mary repeated
here, in which case it would be false), contains only this approximation
to the truth, namely, that the sister of my mother, who died either
before my mother was born, or when she was very young, was called
Eliza. The sitting at this point began to come to an end.

The sitting as a whole left a bad impression upon me at the time,
as it seemed so full of confusion. To an outsider it must still seem
utterly unintelligible, and would be the same to myself but for the
subsequent sittings and the light which a study of them throws upon
this one. There was not at any time evidential matter enough in it
to incline me toward the spiritistic hypothesis, nor did I suspect at all
even any supernormal phenomena. But in the light of the facts
which I now know and of a clear understanding of the represented
machinery of communication, I can make a clear and intelligible story
out of the sitting, excepting the statements associated with the lady
who was not a relative of mine. But it would not have the slightest
value as evidence for the spiritistic theory, unless we considered the
actual coincidences in it as favourable to that doctrine and not account-
able to telepathy.

I now proceed to deal with the remaining sittings and to give the
chief incidents connected with the different communicators. These
are my father Robert Hyslop, my uncle James Carruthers, my cousin
Robert McClellan, my brother Charles Hyslop, my sister Anna Hyslop,
and my uncle James McClellan. My mother is not prominent enough
as a communicator to give her any place in this summary.

As an important help to the reader it may be useful to have a
running account of the chief " communicator's " life and its relation to
the other persons mentioned in the record. I shall not, however,
mention any other events than are necessary for the right comprehen-
sion of the record and its unity. I shall group the incidents in a
chronological order as far as possible.

My father, Robert Hyslop, was born in 1821 and lived on a farm
in Ohio until 1889, when he moved West into a neighboring State. Hti
suddenly returned to his old home, dangerously ill with something like
cancer of the larynx, in August, 1896, and died on the 29th of that
month at the home of his brother-in-law, James Carruthers. Some
where about 1860 he injured his spine by a day's overwork and a few
years afterward became affected with locomotor ataxy and gradually
lost the use of one of his legs so that he had to use a crutch for a

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 27

while, and finally a cane after some improvement. In 1876 he had a
slight stroke of apoplexy, or something like it. After it his hearing
became affected, one ear being quite deaf. About three years before
his death he lost the use of his voice from what was probably paralysis
of the larynx. Finally a year or so before his death he took what he
thought was catarrh, but which was more probably cancer of the
larynx, and it was accompanied with frequent spasms which threatened
to end his life.

My father had three sisters, Mary Amanda, Nancy, and Eliza.
The first of the three married James McClellan, who figures as one of
the "communicators " in this record (pp. 108-111). She died in 1849,
five years before I was born. The other two are still living, but lost
their husbands a short time before my first set of experiments. Eliza
married James Carruthers, the " communicator " who appears now as
" uncle Charles " and now as " uncle Clarke " in this record. The
name of the other uncle was not even hinted at in the "com-
munications," though one allusion implies his death (p. 316). My
mother died in 1869 and my father was married a second time in
1872.

The names of my brothers and sisters are Margaret Cornelia,
who died at two years of age in 1854 ; Sarah Luella, my twin sister,
who died four months old in 1854 ; Charles, who died at four and
a half years in 1864 ; and Anna Laura, who died nearly three years
old in 1864. Of those living are myself, James H., George, Lida
(Eliza), William, Robert, Frank (Francis), and Henrietta, my half-
sister, spoken of as Hettie in this record.

My father belonged to a very orthodox sect. It was the small body of
Associate Presbyterians who refused to join in the union of that denomi-
nation with the Associate Reformed Presbyterians to form the United
Presbyterian Church in 1858. He took an active but not official part
in the controversies that went on about this union at the time. It was
this fact that brought him into acquaintance and friendship with the
Dr. Cooper mentioned in the record, the latter finally going into the
union. My father remained in the* small body that refused to modify
its doctrines and practices. This body held out against every form of
instrumental worship in religious services, and also against the singing
of hymns of human composition. There were many other points of
distinction which are not important for this record. But in his life
my father adhered strictly to the covenants of his profession, and knew
nothing of science and philosophy, except what I discussed with him,
though he read deeply and thoroughly in the theology of his church
and was in that a very intelligent man. He had keen and quick
perceptions, and understood any question clearly when put to him in
the right way.

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

When he gave me an education he rather hoped I would study for
the ministry, but he never undertook either to persuade or compel me
to do so. He left the whole matter to my free choice. But when he
ascertained from my confession in 1882 that I had to modify my religious
beliefs he felt the apostasy very keenly and it was long before he could
in any way reconcile himself to it. My "ideas" were a perpetual
puzzle to him and his own orthodoxy too fixed to listen to the wiles of
scepticism. He was not known to the public in any way, and was
what would be called a very obscure man. His name never appeared
in print except in an occasional article of his own in the denominational
periodical with a small and obscure circulation, or in connection with
some matter of county or township interest.

Statements of my Father, Robert Hyslop.

The second sitting opened with a very marked difference between
it and the first. The situation seemed to have completely changed.
The same apparent causes for confusion were not manifest. The trance
personalities seemed to have the situation perfectly at command. The
first sitting had closed with the expressed indication by G. P. that the
lady who had claimed me for her son should be made clear again. But
in the meantime it was as if the trance personalities had consulted over
the situation and the evidence, and had become assured of the right
communicators. The opening of the second sitting after the usual
preliminaries with the confident address to me in my own name in the
very first words is evidence of the appearance as I have described it.
I was addressed : " James. James. Speak. James. James, speak
to me. James. James," the name by which my father always called
me after 1877. But there was no such apparent fishing and hesitation
in regard to the rightful communications that had marked the dubious
situation in the first sitting. The way was now perfectly clear for
settled communications.

In a few minutes after addressing me as indicated above I was
asked " Where is Willie 1 " This was a repetition of the name of my
brother mi] the question regarding him of the previous day. Some
rum-ftiili'iLiial statements followed, and my father's place was taken by
u n brother Charles, who gave both his name and relationship to me,
mhI intimated that the previous communicator was my father. No
importAttl fact was stated by my brother, and he was followed by a
[0Bg communication purporting to come from my uncle. But I pass
this by tor the present to summarise those from my father, leading to
own identity and suggestive of that of others. After my uncle
father returns to take up his communications. I quote the
8 16).

ft my frith

Digitized by

Google

XXI.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 29

Will you let me return again and help to free my mind ? Do you know
Uncle Charles? (S. : What Uncle Charles?) He is here. (S. : I don't
know any Uncle Charles.) And * * No, I am thinking ... let
me see. I think it is not a real uncle. Tou must remember what I mean.
He used to be so nervous. 1

It all at once dawned on me that " uncle Charles " was a mistake
for " uncle Carruthers," who had died about a, month previously. He
was the husband of my father s sister. The relevance of the passage
is therefore evident. Almost immediately my father says, evidently
with reference to this sister and another, both of whom had just lost
their husbands within a month of each other : " I wish you would tell
the girls I am with them in sorrow or pleas . . . or joy, it matters
not. What is their loss is our gain." The name (Eliza) of one of
these 44 girls," his sister and the wife of the communicator to whom
he had just referred, was given in my uncle's communication. The
sentence, 44 what Is their loss is our gain," was both pertinent and
a common expression of father's in situations of this kind. The
record then proceeds as follows : —

(S. : Free your mind, father.) I will, indeed, but have you seen the
children yet ? (S. : I have not seen them for two years.) They are
wonderfully good, I think. I know, James, that my thoughts are muddled,
but if you can only hear what I am saying, you will not mind it. Do you
know where George is ? (S. : Yes, I know where he is.) Are you troubled
about him . . . he is all right and will be, James. (S. : Yes, all right.)
Worry not. (S. : No, I will not worry.) But you do. (S. : Yes. I have
worried some, but I will not any more.) Thank God. James, if you will
only stick to this . . . stick to the promise not to worry, you will in
time be contented and happy while still in the body (p. 316).

This is a very pertinent passage. How much so is brought out
more fully in my notes (pp. 317, 352). But the name of my brother is
correct, and the advice not to worry about him was characteristic of
my father in the matters connected with this brother. The mental
attitude of apology toward him is that of my father toward him while
living. The expression 44 stick to this " was also characteristic.

1 A$ttri$ks mean that a word or words are omitted which were actually written or
spoken at the sitting, but which were undecipherable. Dots mean that there has been
apparently some interruption in the speech or writing, but not that any words written
or spoken have been omitted.— J. H. H.

1 In the accounts of the sittings, the sitter's remarks and questions are through-
out given in round brackets, and the explanatory notes in square brackets. The
l«tter **S" stands for "Sitter," in this case myself, and 11 R. H." for Dr. Hodgson.
In the sittings for February 7th, 8th, 16th, 20th, and 22nd, which were conducted by

Dr. Hodgson alone while I was in New York, all the remarks, of course, were made

by him.— J. H. H.

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[part

At this point I placed the accordion on the table, and after a short
interruption by my uncle my father continues (p. 318) : —

Do you recall your lectures, and, if so, to whom [do you] recite them
now ? I often hear them in my own mind. Give me some [thing] for the
purpose of helping me remain here longer. (S. : Yes, here it is.) [giving
accordion] My toy. I remember it so well. I left all so suddenly, yet
I knew I was coming. (S. : Yes. Yes, I think so too.) Do you remember
what my feeling was about this life ? (S. : Yes, I do.) Well, I was not so
far wrong after all. I felt sure that there would be some knowledge of this
life, but you were doubtful, remember. (S. : Yes. Yes, I remember.) You
had your own ideas, which were only yours, James.

My father was of the orthodox belief and, of course, accepted a
future life. I was sceptical on this, as on other subjects connected
with orthodoxy, and I was the only one in the family, as indicated
here, that was so affected, so far as my father's knowledge went.
The passage is therefore quite correct in its details, as well as
the phrase "you had your own ideas," as I would say " opinions. "
But the subject and allusion to my scepticism introduces a topic
to which my father returns again and again during my experi -
ments, and always with new facts of our experience in connection
with it. I shall therefore state in this connection all that was given
in his communications regarding it. It relates to the materials of a
conversation that we had on this very subject on my last visit to him
in January or February, 1895. There appears in the communications
more sympathy with "spiritualism" than most persons would recognise
in him from his orthodox affiliations. But the fact was that he knew
absolutely nothing about that doctrine in its fraudulent aspects as it is
usually known. He never saw anything of it personally, and knew it
only as stated in one of his Biblical commentaries. Hence he did not
know enough about it to despise it. But in this conversation with
him, which occurred several times on the two or three days I stayed
with him, he showed a surprisingly receptive attitude toward it. I
had been lecturing on psychical research in Indianapolis a few days
before, and the conversation came about in thus explaining the nature
of my sudden and unexpected visit to him. His receptive attitude,
however, at that time will explain why I am not surprised at the tone
of his speech in the present allusions to be considered immediately. It
is, of course, the later communications that give me the right to
interpret the above passage as referring to the subject in view.

In the sitting of December 26th he returned to this subject as
follows : " I see clearly now, and oh, if I could only tell you all that
is in my mind. It was not an hallucination but a reality, but I felt it
would be possible to reach you " (p. 325). At this point I interrupted
with a question, but after a little interval he resumed the same threads

Digitized by Google

XLL] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomen^ 31

44 James, are you here still? If so, I want very much to know if you
remember what I promised you. (S : Yes. I hope you will tell me what
you promised.) I told you if it would be possible for me to return to you
I would (S. : Yes, I remember), and try and convince you that I lived. I
told you more than this, and I will remember it all. I told you I would come
back if possible, and ... let you know that I was not annihilated. I
remember well our talks about this life and its conditions, and there was a
great question of doubt as to the possibility of communication, that if I
remember rightly was the one question which we talked over. Will
return soon. Wait for me" (p. 325). A little later in the same sitting he
said : — 44 1 have been calling for you ever since I left my body " (p. 327).
Later still in the same sitting, speaking of trying to prove his identity, he
again alludes to keeping his promise (p. 332).

In the sitting of December 27th (p. 341), he asks : - " What do you
remember, James, of our talks about Swedenborg ? (S. : I remember only
that we talked about him.) Do you remember of our talking one evening
in the library about his description of the Bible ? (S : No.) Several years
ago ? (S.: No, I do not remember it.) His opinion of its spiritual sense ?
(S. : No. I do not remember that but perhaps some one else in the family
does.) I am sure of our talks on the subject. It may have been with one
of the others, to be sure. In any case I shall soon be able to remember all
about it."

On February 7th following, Dr. Hodgson began his series of sittings
on my behalf, and near the beginning of the first one, father alludes to
the Swedenborg incident spontaneously (p. 370), as might be natural from
the attitude that I had taken toward it in my last sitting previous, and
expressed his satisfaction with my understanding of it, as told him in
January by Dr. Hodgson, the message having been sent him through
Rector. A little later in the sitting he says : "I often think of the
long talks we used to have during my last years in earth life of the
possibilities of communication with each other " (p. 372).

In my own sitting of May 29th the subject is resumed in the
following brief manner : —

4 * Yes, I am here and I am thinking over the things I said when I was
confused. Do you remember of my telling you I thought it possible that we
might live elsewhere ? But to speak was doubtful very " (p. 420). Near the
beginning of the sitting for May 31st, another remarkable passage on this
subject occurs. In response to my good morning to him, he began : " I
heard every word and I am coming nearer to you. There is no dream here.
And shut out the thought theory and do not let it trouble you. I went on
theorising all my earthly life and what did I gain by it l My thoughts only
became more subtle and unsatisfactory. There is a God, an all wise and
omnipotent God Who is our Guide and if we follow the best within ourselves
we will know more of Him. Now speaking of Swedenborg, what does it
matter whether Jiis teachings were right or wrong so long as we are
individually ourselves here " (p. 438).

J. H. Hyalop, PLD.

[part

In the sitting for June 6th there is a longer and more interesting
passage on this subject. In reply to a statement of explanation indi-
cating that I had looked up a certain matter to which he referred, he
began (p. 474) : —

Well, now I feel satisfied to feel that you are at least pulling with my
push, and that is all I can ask of you. I remember perfectly well
what my own theories were concerning this life, and my too often
expressing doubts about it. I do indeed, but I think I was moved
with the thought that I should live somewhere and not die as a
vegetable. Do you remember our conversations on this subject? (S. :
Yes, I do. Can you tell when it was. Yes, I do remember the
„ . . ) Yes, do you remember of my last visit . . . your last
visit (S. : Yes.) with me? (S. : Yes, I remember it well.) It was more
particularly on this occasion than before. (S. : Yes, that is right. Do you
know what I was doing just before I made the visit ?) Yes, I believe you
had been experimenting on the subject, and I remember of your telling me
something about hypnotism. (S. : Yes, I remember that well.) And what
did you tell me about some kind of manifestation which you were in doubt
about? (S. : It was about apparitions near the point of death.) [Excite-
ment in hand. J Oh, yes, indeed, I recall it very well, and you told me
[about] a young woman who had had some experiments and dreams (S. :
Yes, that is right.) which interested me very much, but yet you were
doubtful about life after so-called death. Remember the long talks we had
together on this, James.

In the sitting of June 7th the subject recurs again (pp. 484-485): —

Do you remember what I said when you told me about the dreams and
what answer I gave you in regard to it ? (S. : No, I have forgotten that,
but I think some one else may remember it who was present.)

I said there were doubtless a great number of these cases, when summed
up they would be of great importance in trying to explain a life elsewhere,
but they seemed to indicate it. Don't you remember it now ? And one
of our own family had an experience some years ago. Do you remember
anything about this either? (S. : Yes, I remember that. Can you say
which one had that experience ?)

I intended to, and I wanted to remind you of it before, but I was too
far off to say it before I came here. I have often thought about it : in fact
we have spoken of it together since I came here. I mean since I passed out.
It was Charles who came and took my place before I had time to finish it.
I will try and finish it before I go. And he saw the light, and spoke of it
before he came here, James.

Oh, dear, I want to say a great deal more, and cannot they give us more
light ? [Hand bows in prayer.] The light is not so good this day as we
would have it be, yet we will help give it.

I am still here, James, and I am thinking about the experience your uncle
had before he came here. It was your uncle who had it, and we have often,
spoken of it together here, James. (S. : Yes. That is the uncle who
married your sister Eliza.) [Hand assents.] Yes, Clarke. And it was a
notification of his coming suddenly. He often refers to it.

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.

Is this clear to James, friend? [Rector's question to Dr. Hodgson.]
(S. : Yes, that is clear.) [I had the legibility of the writing in mind. See
Note, p. 485.]

I did wish to say this when I was referring to it last time, but I was too
far off. I remember very well the facts and you must.

Now for the facts as I recall them. They are substantially as
indicated in the communications with the exception of two or three. I
did hold those long conversations with my father on my last visit, as
stated here. I was exceedingly sceptical about the subject and about a
life hereafter. I made this very clear in my treatment both of appa-
ritions and of the first two reports on Mrs. Piper, which I explained
away by telepathy, " the thought theory," as stated here in the com-
munication. My attitude toward apparitions is intimated in the state-
ment of the communicator that he did not * think it would be a
" hallucination, but a reality." I was confident, however, that we had
not talked about Swedenborg, and did not believe that father knew
anything about him. But investigation showed that we did talk
about him, and that my memory and judgment were wrong on this
point. (See Note 17, p. 361.) We did also talk about hypnotism.
Father brought this up for explanation, mentioning some striking
public performances reported in the town. I discussed the matter
fully and tried to hypnotise my brother several times and failed, much
to my father's disappointment. Most interesting also is the fact that I
told him in that conversation of Mrs. D.'s dream and the experiment
which I performed in connection with it. {Proceedings, Vol. XII.,
pp. 272-274.)

In regard to the promise made to me that he would return and if
possible let me know that he still lived, I can only say that I wrote to
him on his deathbed " to come to me after it was all over," my inten-
tion being to try the experiment of which we hear so much. But in
the reply to this letter, which he dictated to my stepmother, no such
promise is made, and I do not recall ever broaching it at any other
time, or any such promise being made. But from the reply that he
made to my stepmother when she asked liim what I meant by this
last request in the last sentence of my last letter to him, it is reason-
able to suppose that he had this return in his mind, as he evidently
understood the request, but would not reveal his thoughts. (See Note 9,
p. 356.) As to his remark about the effect of a large number of
apparitions on the evidence for a future life, I do not recall it. I was
more likely the person to hold this view of them, and have no doubt
that I expressed it as the suggestion of such experiences, though I was
not prepared to accept them as satisfactory proof. His perspicacity
and his interest in the subject at the time qualified him to either make
or appreciate the remark, but I do not recall that he made it. The

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

experience of my uncle cannot be verified, as it is described here. He
did have a vision at one time, to which he gave some religious import-
ance in his life as a monition to decide which path he should choose ;
but, in addition to the fact that it occurred under a dose of morphine
in a serious illness, its character would not appear to a scientific mind
as in any respect premonitory — even after premonition was proved —
and I could not find any traces among the members of his family of
any other experience in their knowledge that would justify the inter-
pretation here given. But in all other respects the coincidences in the
communications speak for themselves, both as regards the matter of
personal identity and that of an independent memory exhibiting itself
throughout every condition of the experiments.

To return to the point (p. 318) at which I began this long incident
about the present subject — after an interesting interruption of the
communications with some conversation by Rector with Dr. Hodgson
about a 44 little girl trying to find her mother," the incident having no
reference to me (p. 319) — my father returns to say that he 44 was the
last to come here," and asked if I recalled his being frank, and said,
44 1 recall the struggles you had over your work well, very well.
Everything in life should be done with sincerity of purpose. I know well
all the difficulties which you encounter" (p. 321). The first statement
was a correct fact, his frankness with me was a marked characteristic,
and the reference to sincerity of purpose contained the exact phraseology
which represented his constant advice in any trying intellectual,
moral, or religious difficulty. The sitting then came to a close.

Near the beginning of the third sitting, after addressing me as
44 James," etc., my father asked me if I remembered the story he used
to tell me of a fire when he was quite young. I asked what story, and
the message was repeated, and I thought of a certain fire of which
I knew when I, not he, was young (p. 324). In the effort to have it
cleared up the subject was changed. But I brought him back to it by
a question regarding it, and the reply was, 44 Oh, yes, the fire. Strange
T was forgetting to go on. I was nearly forgetting to go on with
it. The fire did great damage and I used to think I never would care
to see the like again." I was unable to conjecture to what he referred
with any assurance, especially as there were both exaggeration and
discrepancies in it, so far as my memory of fires was concerned.
Nothing more was volunteered on the subject in this series of sittings
But in the sitting by Dr. Hodgson on February 7th, Rector indicate?
that father is thinking of a fire about which he wishes to be cleai
(p. 372). Then on May 30th at my sitting (p. 430), father asks, " Anc
do you recall the fire I spoke to you about?" I replied that
remembered a fire, but was not certain what fire he meant. The replj
came, 44 We lived near, and although it did not interfere, it gave me ;

XLx] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.

fright. My thoughts are quite clear on this point. I think there can
be no mistaking it." Singularly enough, this is followed by the spon-
taneous remark that some things which he has tried to say may seem
muddled, as the first allusion to the fire evidently was, according to
the sequel, in the following facts

Investigation at first discovered no probabilities in the first mention
of the fire. Later my aunt recalled a fire when my father was young,
which probably instigated the concern he felt about fire throughout
his life. But on reading the passage in the sitting of May 30th to
my stepmother (p. 430), she and my sister at once recalled a fire that gave
my father quite a fright. It was not when he was young, but a short
time before he moved West. He was always anxious about his barn
and house, as he could never be induced to insure them until late in
life. The occasion that fits the later message is described fully in my
note (p. 364). It brings out the exaggeration and possible truth in
the first message, as well as the certain truth in the second, so that a
singular interest attaches to the statement that indicates an apparent
consciousness of confusion in this incident.

The next allusion after the fire in this sitting of December 26th was
to our conversation on spirit communication, which has been discussed
already. At the end of it I took the opportunity to ask the question,
** Do you know what the trouble was when you passed out 1 " and there
followed one of the most remarkable, though confused messages in
the record. I asked the question in order to test his identity most
thoroughly, and had in mind the disease from which he thought he
suffered, namely, catarrh, while I knew it was probably cancer of the
larynx. I knew that if cancer of the larynx was mentioned, the
theory of telepathy would have a strong, if not conclusive, point in its
favour. But the following communications came in answer (p. 327) : —

No, I did not realise that we had any trouble, James, ever. I thought
we were always most congenial to each other. I do not remember any
trouble, tell me what was it about ? You do not mean with me, do you
. . . (S. : Father, you misunderstand me. I mean with the sickness.) Oh,
yes, I hear. I hear you. Yes, I know now. Yes, my stomach. (S. : Yes,
was there anything else the matter ?) Yes ; stomach, liver, and head.

: Very well. Tell all about it.) He has taken off this condition, but
tells me he could not see clearly. What was meant by his eyes. His
stomach and . . . speak plainly ... [to invisible] I do not get
it. Sounds like Bone (?) Bone (?) Bone (?) he is telling me. Wait.

He places his hand over his . . . heart beat (?) (S. : Heart ?) Yes,
let me reach thee, friend. [Hand moves over R. H.'s head.] Think I am
finding it hard to breathe . . . my heart, James . . . my heart,
James. . . . difficult to breathe. Do you not remember how I used to
breathe ? (S. : Yes, father, you are on the right line now.) Yes, I think it
was my heart which troubled me most, and my lung. Stomach and heart.

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PART

I felt a * * * [undeciphered] and tightness of my chest . . . and
my heart failed me. He says distressed in the region of the heart, but at
last I went to sleep. Was it not congestion, James ? (S.: Not that I know
of.) [I had the catarrh in mind in saying this when I should have had the
death scene.] I will try and remember all about it, he says, yet I remember
heart and head well.

A little later he apparently returns to the recollections of his
last moments and says : " Do you know the last thing I recall is your
speaking to me. (S. : Yes, right.) And you were the last to do so.
(S. : Very well. Was any one else at the bedside ?) I remember
seeing your face, but I was too weak to answer " (p. 332).

I did not discover in this remarkable passage until I was reading the
sitting over at Dr. Hodgson's office, that it was an attempt to describe
the incidents of his death. I was prevented from seeing this because the
spasms of the larynx from which he frequently suffered were accom-
panied by great difficulty in breathing, and I disregarded the other
allusions as automatisms ; until it all at once came upon me, from the
recollection indicated in the term " congestion," that he had interpreted
my question in another, and in fact, more correct sense, to refer to his
death. At once every one of the incidents indicated assumed a
perfectly definite meaning, as my note shows very clearly (p. 328),
The trouble with his stomach was especially noticed in the morning
about seven o'clock. The heart action began to decline about half-past
nine, and this was followed by increasing difficulty in getting his
breath until the struggle for this became one of the most painful
things I ever witnessed. Just after the last effort his eyes closed as if
going to sleep, and in a moment the jaw fell and the end came. The
allusion to the " congestion " appeared to suggest telepathy to account
for it, as soon as I saw the meaning of the question, as I knew from
the doctor's statement that he suffered from congestion in his spasms,
and I thought that my father knew nothing about it. But the doctor's
testimony shows that my father did know the fact (p. 356). It is not
known whether he suffered with his eyes during his last moments,
though it is probable. The references to his liver and to what was
interpreted as " Bone " are unintelligible.

The allusion to my being the last to speak to him is a remarkable
incident. When his eyelids fell, as I said, I exclaimed, " He's gone,"
and I was the last to speak. Father had been unable to speak for
more than an hour. All these incidents, including the physical
symptoms of his dying, are a confirmation of my inference regarding
the " consciousness of dying " in this very case, though I did not
mention any names, in the account of it published in the Journal of

the S.P.R. (Vol. Vin, pp. 250-255). That inference was that he was
conscious of dying. The statement, however, that " at last I went to

XLi.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 37

sleep " might throw some doubt on the implication that I attached to
the '* consciousness of dying " in this case. But it is interesting to
trace a perfectly clear consciousness up to the closing of the eyes and
falling of the jaw after the motor system refused to allow any expression
of consciousness.

The statement at the close of the message referring to his last
moments and illness that he would try and remember it, gave me an
opportunity to ask him if he remembered what medicine I had gotten for
him in New York, this medicine having been obtained for his catarrh.
I thought that this question might help him out in the answer. He
said: —

Yes, I do faintly. (S. : Never mind. Tell me about it later, when you
feel clear.) James, it was my heart, and I remember it well, and my eyes
troubled me also. Do you remember this ( (S. : No, I do not remember
this.) Do you not remember what the swelling meant ? I remember taking
bold of my own hands and holding them together over my chest, but strange
I cannot think of the word I want. I know it so well too. (S. : Do I know
it also ?) Oh yes, very well. (S. : Did I ever have the same sickness ?)
Yes, long ago. (S. : Yes, that is right. What did I do for it ?) This is
what I cannot think, and it troubles me a little, James, because I know it
so well (p. 330).

The first part of the answer to my question seems to be a reversion
to his sickness after telling him not to worry about the medicine. The
difficulty with his eyes I knew nothing about at the time, but learned
from my stepmother, since the sitting, that during the last year of his
life he was troubled with his left eye in particular, as well as with his
larynx. The reference to the swelling was pertinent, as he often
expressed wonder that the outside of his throat should be swollen from
the effects of catarrh. He probably held his hands over his breast
when taking the inhaler to bed with him, but this is not verifiable.
The answer that I had the same sickness lony ago is correct. I had
the catarrh very badly between fourteen and twenty-one.

After an interval (occupied by other communicators) my father at
once began to try giving the name of the medicine, and apparently
tried to say quinine (quien), but on being asked if this was what he
meant, the hand dissented (p. 332), and after saying that " it begins
with D," gave it up with the statement, u Oh, I know it so well, yet
I cannot say it when I wish to." I repeated the request not to worry
about it, saying that it would come again.

Near the beginning of the sitting of the next day, December 27th,
he undertook to answer the question about the medicine and succeeded.
He said : " I remember Himi [or Hime] 8 (R. H. : Is that Hume ?)
(& : Yes, that is right.) Yes. 8. * * * is (?) Hume [?] [not
clear intermediate letters] time (?) (8. : Yes, that is right. Now one

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[part

or two words after that.) S nut [?] Serris [?] doings [X] I cannot
catch all now . . . life. . . . You know what is on my mind
perfectly, James. I used to speak of it often " (p. 336).

The medicine that I got for him was Hyomei (accented on first
syllable) and he came near enough this in "Himi" for me not to press
the struggle farther. What the " S " and " Serris " meant was not clear.
A few minutes later, he resumed the attempt, as follows : —

I am thinking of Streine (?) Str .... stri . . . . stryc n . . . .
Speak, speak. (S. : Well, father, is this Stryc ?) Yes. (S. : Well, what is
the next letter?) Nia .... E . . . . E . . . . Str. Slower, sir, do
not speak so fast. I will help you. Now slower — [to spirit.] StR . . .
Strycnine." (S. : Good, father, that is right.) Do you hear me, my son !
(S. : Yes, father, I hear you perfectly.) I remember you went and got it for
me. God bless you, James, he says. And a numerous amount of other
medicines [?] which I cannot * * * [undec] (p. 337).

I remembered nothing about his taking strychnine, and ascertained
from my stepmother, my brother, and my sister that he was taking it
with the Hyomei. Later I found that my father had mentioned both
arsenic and strychnine in one of his letters to me written about three
months before his death, so that I had forgotten the fact. The
" S nut " and " Serris " may have been attempts to give one or both of
these names. But the Hyomei was the only medicine that I myself
obtained for him. The strychnine was prescribed for him by the
physician where he was living. I learned that my father had taken a
great many different medicines.

In getting the confirmation of the strychnine incident, my step-
mother mentioned incidentally another medicine that he had taken in
considerable quantities, and, as a further test, when Dr. Hodgson held
his sittings for me, I sent on the question to know whether he remem-
beml n\\\ other medicines that he had taken besides the Hyomei and
the strychnine, and at about the same time. Dr. Hodgson asked the
qw-stiou injar the close of the sitting on February 8th. On February
MitH rUnt^r stated that it was morphine, and immediately afterward
Di% Hodgson repeated the question to father and he confirmed Rector's
atnteinenf (p. 384). A little later he spontaneously apologised for
tailing morphine : " Do not gather the idea that I was a subject to

rphia lireause I was not, only as a medicine " (p. 385).

Inquiry showed that he had never taken any morphine and that he
wm ahvjvyH very strongly opposed to using it. At the opening of
tbo iittiitg for February 20th, after Dr. Hodgson explained to him
,t I did not know about the morphine, but was thinking about some
l>'nt medicine," he requested Dr. Hodgson to ask me "if he does
l reocdl I In? fact of my taking several grains of morphia before I took

Digitized by

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.

the Hyomeit" (p. 391). This would have been correct if he had said
arsenic. Rector then says : —

"I think he will recall it yet," and father at once takes up the thread and
says : 44 It was, if 1 remember rightly, I think some months before when I
had a bad or ill turn." It is true that my father had a specially ill turn
some months before he sent for the Hyomei. He then apparently recurs
to the inquiry about the " patent medicine," and says : "I will try and
recall the name of that preparation " (p. 391).

In a few minutes, and after a respite, he began : "Yes, I took . . .

yea, I took MU MUN Yes, I took Munion

....MUNYON sounds like . . . and he repeats again

and again Gerniside (Gerniside ? ) Yes, G e r m i s % d e." In a few
minutes again, in response to the question of Dr. Hodgson about any other
medicines, he said : 44 1 took at one time some preparation of oil, but the
name has gone from my memory. I know everything so well when I am
not speaking to you " (p. 391).

Inquiry discovered that father had never taken any of Munyon's
Catarrh Remedy, which would be the only one of Munyon's medicines
that he would be disposed to get, nor did he take any other of that
system of medicines. But I ascertained that he had often talked of
getting this very medicine, having seen it advertised, according to the
testimony of my brother, in a circular, and it is widely known as a
germicide. The "preparation of oil" he did use. It was called
Japanese Oil, and was sent to him by a friend. This incident was not
known to me.

On February 22nd, near the beginning of the sitting, he spon-
taneously referred (p. 397) to "taking this vapor preparation to
which I have previously given mention." The Hyomei is a vapour.
Then on the first of my last series of sittings, May 29th, I was at once
accosted with the question : " Was it malt you wished me to think
about . . . M a 1 t i n e you . . ." (p. 418).

If this has any pertinence at all it is an incident like " Munyon's
Germiside." He never took any Mai tine. But when my stepmother
wrote to my brother that father was losing flesh, my brother, seeing
that he was not rightly nourished, at once wrote to father to get some
Maltine and take it. It is probable that he talked about it, but my
stepmother does not recall whether he did or not. It thus appears, so
far as inquiry goes, that morphine was never taken by my father at
all ; that Maltine and the Munyon Remedy had both been specially in
his mind at one time (though I was never aware of the fact) ; that
strychnine was taken by him in connection with the Hyomei ( a fact
wholly forgotten by me), although I did not obtain it for him ; that
Hyomei, a " vapor preparation," was the special medicine that I did
get for him, and that I remembered well, and that a " preparation of
oil " was taken by him, as was entirely unknown to me.

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

A few communications, of little evidential value, except the allusion
to my voice being the last he heard when dying, followed the
attempt to give the medicine in my sitting of December 26th (p. 332),
and then my uncle interrupted. But his place was very soon taken by
my father again with the singular remark (p. 332) : " Yes, Hyslop. I
know who I am. And Annie too," as if amused at the confusion of
my uncle, which was very evident. He then proceeded with the com-
munications to me (p. 333).

And long before the sun shall set for you I will give you a full and
complete account of your old father, James. Keep quiet, do not worry
about anything, as I used to say. It does not pay. Remember this 1 (S. :
Yes, father, I remember that well.) That, James, was my advice always and
it is still the same. You are not the strongest man you know and health is
important for you. Cheer up now and be quite yourself. (S. : Yes, father,
I shall. I am glad to hear this advice.) Remember it does not pay and life
is too short there for you to spend it in worrying. You will come out all safe
and well and will one day be reunited with us, and we shall meet face to
face and you will know me well. What you cannot have be content without,
health or anything else, but do not worry, and not for me. This is going
to be my life, and you will know all that it is possible for any one to know.
(S. : Yes, father, I am glad of that. It will be my life here too.) Yes, I
know it, and as we lived there so we will also live here. Devoted you were
to me always, and I have nothing to complain of except your uneasy
temperament and that I will certainly help. Only trust in all that is good,
James, and be contented whilst you stay and I will certainly be near you. I
am a little weary, James, but I will return and recall if possible my
medicine.

The evidences of personal identity are very strong in this whole
passage, though they will not appear so to the general reader, until he
is told the fact that one phrase after another of it is exactly what
my father constantly used to me in life. " Do not worry," " it does
not pay," " life is too short," that we shall be reunited beyond the
grave, are all as natural as life to me. Hundreds of times he has
warned me that I am not so strong as some men. Of course, the
incidents are not so striking as most of those upon which I have
commented, but they reflect a tone of mind toward me that is exactly
as I knew my father, and are suggestive of identity on any theory of
the phenomena whatsoever. It is clear and intelligible, almost too
much so to escape suspicion. But it has too many psychological
points of identity in it to be treated as in any way the product of
chance.

The sitting for December 27th was opened with some general and
unevidential remarks from my father regarding his condition for com-
municating and indications that he had been told by the " control "
that he would have an opportunity to return and communicate with

Digitized by

XLi.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 4?1

Dr. Hodgson in my absence. The dramatic play in this has its
interest, as it involves a question directed to Dr. Hodgson, which was
closely enough associated with me for the communicator to expect that
I would ultimately get the messages. After being assured that he need
"not feel troubled because he could have no further talk" with me at
this time, he began at once to ask about his things that he had taken
with him when he moved from his old home in Ohio : —

James, do you remember what . . . the things I took out West.
(S. : Yes, father.) Well, are they not for you . . . (S. : Some of them
I think are. What ones are for me ?) I wish all the books, every one,
and photos (B.H. : Photos) (S. : Pictures) painting Pictures . . . yes,
every one of those of mine. I took them out West you remember. (S. :
Yes, I remember.) I should have said that I wished I would have had you
have them before now. [Rector explains.] He speaks too rapidly, fearing
be may forget something . . . had said all I wished. Cannot you
send for them. I am sure . . . will give them up. (S. : Do you want
one of the books to touch ?) Yes, very much . My diary, anything, diary
. . . yes, or anything, any one of them. Give me one, James, if
possible. I have something on my mind (p. 335).

There is a curious combination of evidential matter and of appre-
ciative reference to the use of the things to which he refers. The first
evidential fact is the allusion to his moving out West. He did this in
1889, and, of course, took all his household goods with him, including
his books and pictures. He had some photos and two or three chromos
which in his parlance might be safely called "paintings." The mention
of his diary is also somewhat pertinent, as he had a day-book in which
he kept both his accounts and various matters usually put down in a
diary, some of the things being directions which I found applying
to the management of the estate after his death. But, in mentioning
the articles here, there is the evident desire that they shall be produced
to 44 hold him " in the communications. This is a curious recognition
on the 44 other side " of the conditions for satisfactory communication
which we have learned empirically on this side. Why and how they
affect the results we do not know, but they apparently do as a fact,
absurd as it may seem to us. A little later in the same sitting he
repeats : 44 Get the pictures ; do you not want them, James 1 " (p. 337).

On February 8th he alluded to his habit of 44 poring over the pages
of his books and writing out little extracts from them in his diary "
(p. 380). This is true except that the extracts which he was accustomed
to make were not written in his account book. He might have kept
them in the diary, but this is now un verifiable. On May 30th he again
asked me if I remembered his library and books, and inquired what had
become of them, saying, 4fc I am sure they are all right wherever they
are, but there are some things on my mind which I must get off

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

(p. 434). On June 6th he again asked me about the books, and wanted
to know what I had done with those he had given me (p. 473). Also
on June 8th (p. 490). This will come up later in another connection.
But it is referred to at present in order to exhibit the action o!
memory from sitting to sitting.

In the interval between two attempts, December 27th, to give the
strychnine (p. 336) he mentioned a knife which has considerable
evidential importance. He said, " Do you remember the little knife I
used to pick out my nails with . . .1 (S. : I am not sure, father.)
The little brown handle one. I had it in my vest and then in coat
pocket. You certainly must remember it. (S. : Was this after you
went out West ?) Yes, I seem to lose part of my recollections between
my absence and return, just before I had this change, and the cap I
used to wear — the cap . . . the cap T used to wear. And this
I have lost too" (p. 336).

I knew nothing of this knife, but wrote to my stepmother,
brother, and sister, without telling them what I was doing, to know
if father ever had such a knife, and received word from all three of
them that he did and that they had it yet. I then wrote to know
what he used it for, and received the answer that he used it for paring
his nails and various purposes about the house. But it seems that he
did not carry it in either his vest or coat pocket, but in his trousers
pocket. It is interesting, however, in this connection to remark his
own spontaneous intimation of a defective memory.

A little later, in this same sitting, he recurred to the knife in the
following manner. " Ask Willie about the knife. (S. : Yes, father, I will
ask Willie about it, but there is one other boy who will know better than
he.) I do not . . . George. (S. : No, not George.) Rob. Did you
ask me to tell the other . . . Roberts (?) Robert. (S. : That is good,
father, but not the one. Yea, Robert is the right name, but the one that
will remember the knife is a younger boy.)" Rector then added to me :
44 He [referring to Imperatorj will explain it to him, and I will get his
answer soon " (p. 337.) A few minutes later father returned to the matter

as follows : "Do you mean F James? (S. : Yes, father, I mean

F., if you can tell the rest.) Yes, I can remember very well. F R A D (?) "
(p. 337).

The names of my brothers, Willie, George, and Robert, always
called Rob., were correct, and the "D" in the original automatic
writing might justifiably be read as a combination of N and K, which
would make the name of the younger brother, Frank, correct and also the
answer to my implied question. But we decided to treat the writing
as a confused letter D with the doubt against instead of for us. The
\ght attempt, however, was evidently made, and came nearly enough
needing to indicate what was intended. The name of Willie hat!
n spontaneously given in the first sitting (p. 309) and I had tried to

xu.J Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 43

deceive the communicator in the same sitting (p. 307), but the names of
Rob. and Frank were given here for the first time.

On February 8th in Dr. Hodgson's sitting for me, after alluding to
his pen and paper cutter (Cf. pp. 379, 380), which were contemporary
articles with the knife, he asked Dr. Hodgson : " Perhaps you will
recall my asking for my knife" (p. 378). This is a very pretty
illustration of the unity of consciousness and association with con-
temporary articles, and a memory of what had been mentioned before,
Dr. Hodgson knowing nothing of the relation between the knife and
the articles with which it was associated. The most important points
in connection with the knife were that my father specifically mentions
it, that he called it a brown handled one, that he mentioned its special
use, and that all the facts were unknown to me.

In regard to the cap incident, I said in a short note at the time
that I knew nothing about it, and I could have added that I did not
care, as I regarded it as absurd — a mere automatism. It was only
after it had been mentioned a second time that I made inquiries about
it. It turned out such an important incident that I must narrate the
facts very fully.

On February 1 6th my father sent to me through Dr. Hodgson the
question : " Do you recall a little black skull-cap I used to wear, and
what has become of it. I have looked and looked for it, but do not
see it anywhere about. Answer this for me, James, when you come
again" (p. 387).

I made inquiries of my aunt whether father ever wore such a cap
in his early life, and receiving a negative reply (p. 387), dropped
the matter. But on February 22nd he said to Dr. Hodgson : " Did
you remind James of my cap I " and Dr. Hodgson replied : " Yes. He
does not remember it." My father then said : " Not remember it % Ask
Nannie. You see I was in the West, far from him for some time, and
my habits of dress and my doings may not be known to him, but
the rest may remember, if he does not " (p. 406).

This Is a very remarkable passage, every word of it being true,
except the name Nannie, which the context led me to suspect might
be a mistake for Maggie, the name of my stepmother. It led to careful
inquiries about the cap. I found that my stepmother had made him a
black skull-cap to wear at night because he had complained of a cold
head on cold nights, having been very bald for many years. But he did
not wear the cap more than a few times. It could not be found as no one
knows what became of it. It was at this point that it suddenly occurred
to me that the 44 Nannie " was a mistake for my stepmother, as I had
found some truth in the incident and observed that the word " aunt,"
which had been used for my aunt of that name, had been omitted.
There had been some earlier references to the name " Nannie " without

J. H. Hyalop, PhD.

[part

the prefix " aunt " (p. 388). I therefore suspected that we had here a
distinction between the aunt and my stepmother, and it became a later
problem to settle this matter, which I postponed as long as possible
with the hope that her name would ultimately be given correctly with-
out suggestion from me. On May 29th he alluded to the cap again
without mentioning my stepmother, and he referred to my brother as
the one with whom he had left it "Do you remember a small
cap I used to wear occasionally, and I left it, I think, with Francis.
(R. H. : Francis?) [Hand dissents.] Fred, F R E. I mean
Fredrick (?) [S. shakes his head negatively.] No, not that, but
with F." (p. 425). My brother Francis, always called Frank in
nickname for Francis, his correct name, was at home when the cap
was made, but there is no reason to suppose that it was left with him
any more than with my stepmother or any one else. The chief interest
in this incident is the mention of it as if it had not been spoken of
before. The assumption is all along made that I ought to know
about the cap, when as a fact I knew nothing whatsoever regarding
it, so far as I can ascertain, until told after the mention of it in this
record. Some features of this case will come up again when considering
the name of my stepmother (p. 69). It is important here only as repre-
senting an incident of which I knew or remembered nothing, and was
apparently given for the main purpose of identifying himself very
clearly ; but it only happened in the end to supply any service for this
object, though — in the first passage in which it aroused my attention,
namely, that in which he alluded to my ignorance of his habits after
moving West (p. 406), — it was connected with so much truth that I
needed only to know the facts and to confirm my conjecture regarding
the intended meaning of the name " Nannie " in order to find in this
passage a strong incident for personal identity.

Returning to December 27th, just after alluding to the name oi
my brother George in the knife incident (p. 337) my father took him
up for some further very pertinent communications. He began : —

" Do you hear me . . . what I told you about George 1 (S. : Yes, yoi
mean before.) Yes, I . . . (S. : Yes, I remember.) I had a great doal t<
think of there, James. (S. : Yes, father, you did.) And the least said th<
sooner mended. Hear? (S. : Yes, father, I hear.) Do you understand
(S. : Yes, father, I understand.) I will work now, and unceasingly as I cai
for him " (p. 337). The pertinent parts of this message are the refereno
to the 44 much to think of there " and the phrase " the least said the soone
mended." My notes explain both of them (p. 348). Then after he ha<
attempted to give the name of Frank in response to my desire for it* h
made a number of relevant observations, generally very pertinent thougl
not specifically evidential, such as the wish to '* step in and hear me at th
college," an explanation of why he had done so much for me, and finally hi
proposal to " right matters to his own liking, especially with tho boys

Digitized by Google

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 45

(p. 338). My father did have much anxiety in connection with my brother
George, and as I learned later from my aunt, the phrase, 44 the least said the
sooner mended," was a common expression before my time in the family,
and used to describe situations of the kind indicated here, and which was
folly exemplified in the prudential method that father always employed in
his correspondence with me about my brother (p. 349).

At this point in the communications we interfered to read to my
father some statements that I had prepared beforehand for the
purpose. The arrangements for this had to be made with Rector, so
that he would understand what I wanted. I had prepared some
explanation of my reticence as influenced by the desire to avoid making
suggestions, and some items indicating my general object in the experi-
ments and its relations to the general beliefs of my father, in order
partly to reveal my identity more clearly than I had done, and partly
to call out some expression from him that would indicate what I knew
of his religious life, as none of it up to this point had revealed itself.
When the proposition was made to Rector, he explained at once that
my father could get the messages only in fragments now, and that we
should have to repeat it later (p. 338). As soon as this was under-
stood we placed the accordion on the table to " hold him," and I began
to read my message slowly to the hand. I first explained why I had
not asked him many questions, saying that I had desired to
avoid making suggestions, when I received the very appreciative
answer : u Ah, yes, I remember the difficulties." In my conversation
with him on this subject and the early Piper reports, I had explained
to him fully the danger of suggesting our answers by our questions,
when experimenting with mediums. I then proceeded, and in refer-
ring to the ultimate significance of work likely to prove a future life,
said, with the purpose of exciting his religious consciousness, "You
know it is the work of Christ and you will remember that I always
said that I wished to live the life of Christ, even if I was not a
believer." As soon as this sentence was finished, and before I could go
on with the next sentence, Rector took the hand away, and, as if
having said to the communicator, " do you hear that 1 " quickly wrote :
"Perfectly. Yes, that is surely James." My statement, of course,
could suggest the reply, but it is interesting as having been said to
Rector and not to me, and comes through, either as an automatism, or
as a message whose value Rector could appreciate and deliver for our
purpose. I went on and closed with the desire that he should work on
the " other side," as I should on this, to do the work of Christ. He
said : " Yes. / ivill and unceasingly. You know my thoughts well,
and you also know what my desires were before entering this life.
And you also know whom I longed to meet and what I longed to
do for you . . whom I longed to meet he says. (S. : Yes, father.

H. Hydop, PLD.

[part

I know well.) Good. Keep it in mind, James, and I will push from
this side while you call from yours, and we will sooner or later come
to a more complete understanding " (p. 340).

The pertinence of this is the fact that father had always believed
he would meet Christ face to face after death, and was very much hurt
when he found that I could no longer accept the beliefs and hopes of
orthodoxy. Presently I asked him directly whether he remembered
much of his religious life (p. 340), and he replied : " Yes, I think I do \
nearly everything, and my views whereas they were not just correct in i
everything, yet they were more or less correct, and I have found a '
great many things as I had pictured them in my own earthly mind. i
Since Christ came to the earthly world there has been an almost )
constant revelation of God and His power over all" (p. 341). He
then asked me if I remembered our conversation about Swedenborg,
which I have already mentioned, and to which I refer again for the
sake of the pertinence of its connection. The passage just quoted,
while it contains no incident that is evidential, has a tone about
it that is not telepathic, as it reflects alleged facts neither in my :
mind nor in his terrestrial experience, but which would be quite natural |
if the spiritistic theory be correct. It is perhaps not beyond the
power of a secondary consciousness to produce the like, and I refer
to the incidents only for the psychological unity of purpose in them and
their appreciation of the situation, with occasional touches of identity
in them, too slight to be marked by any one but myself. But compare
with this the whole passage in which the reference to the hymn,
" Nearer My God to Thee " occurs, where also there is marked the
same apparent change of opinions held in life (p. 389). For a peculiar
interest attaching to the words " push " and " call " the reader may
consult the notes on page 340.

After the allusion to Swedenborg, he immediately reverted to the
subject of my reticence, and said very pertinently : " I am glad you have
not given me any suggestions for your sake, but it has perplexed me a
little, and at times seemed unlike yourself. I faintly recall the trouble
on the subject of spirit return." After what I said above, the pertinence
of this needs no explanation. Immediately following this, I asked him
who was with us on that occasion, and he replied that he did not
understand my question. I repeated it, and he said it was in New
York, evidently still misunderstanding my query. I was living in New
York at the time. I dropped the matter, as I saw there was some
confusion about it, and in the attempt to mention a few moments later
those whom he had not yet mentioned, he said : " No, I think t have
sent all except sister. (S. : Yes, I think perhaps you are right. One
thing I had not understood. Now which sister is this ?) I mean
Nan. R [P f) Mannie, and after my acknowledgment added " Give my

xuj Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 47

love to her, of course." Then, after a sentence or two to myself,
said : " Tell Eliza too ; both. And tell them to believe and trust in
God always, and I will often bring comfort to Eliza in her sorrow"
(p. 342). My father's sister Eliza had lost her husband very suddenly
by an accident just a month previous to the sittings, and he had been a
communicator in the second sitting (p. 314). The other sister, Nannie,
had also lost her husband almost as suddenly just two months before.
But I received absolutely no communications from him. But there is
some reason to suppose that the 44 Nan " immediately changed to
14 Mannie" was an attempt to say "Maggie " (Cf. pp. 342, 365), which
was the name of my stepmother, and which would have been the
correct answer to my question. It is equally possible that both my
aunt Nannie and my stepmother were intended, though the use of
44 both " and the reference to his sister Eliza a little later is against
this and perhaps in favour of the reference to his sister Nannie alone.

Immediately after the allusion to my two aunts the record proceeds :
** Do you remember the glasses (S. : What glasses 1) and where they
are? She has them, I think. (S. : Yes. Who has them]) Nani
(S. : No, not Nannie.) Ani. (S. : What glasses did you ask about T)
M . . . Mnni. (S. : Whom did you leave them with 1) I am thinking.
It was Eliza. I do not think I said just right." The sitting had
then to come to a close before anything more could be said (p. 343).

My father died in the house of my aunt Eliza, and he did leave
his spectacles there. Myself and stepmother Maggie took them from
there after his death, but in saying that he did not 44 think he said
just right," he evidently had in mind the mention of my stepmother
as the person with whom he left them, which would also have been
correct. Ilad the statement been : 44 1 left them with Maggie at
Eliza's," it would have been exactly the truth, which is only vaguely
hinted at here. The possible meaning of 44 Nani," 44 Ani," and 44 Mnni "
in their connection with Maggie is indicated later (p. 365-6).

It may be a matter of some interest to the reader that at the close
of this sitting, as Mrs. Piper came out of the trance, she uttered the
full name of my father, 44 Robert Hyslop."

On February 7th Dr. Hodgson opened his series of sittings on my
behalf. They are full of an interest additional to the evidential one
for personal identity. The dramatic play of personality, which I shall
<liscuss later, is a most striking characteristic of them. The first
four of then are not so plentiful in specific evidence for identity, but
Ktill have sufficient to show that we were dealing with the same con-
sciousness. Two or three very important matters occurred in them,
and the last had as significant incidents as any of the sittings which
I attended personally.

J. H. Byalop, Ph.D.

After the usual preliminaries in the first sitting of this se
Rector remarked that if Dr. Hodgson had no more questions, he w<
bring my father to him at once. A singular piece of dramatic j
followed, in which a colloquy occurred on the " other side," indicat ~
a misunderstanding on my father's part as to the person to whom *" "
was to communicate. He appears to have thought he was to commi
cate to me as before, and the matter had to be explained to him,
details of the " transcendental " conversation appearing in the record
370). As soon as he understood the situation, he began with a rei -
ence to the Swedenborg incident to say that he was glad that I und
stood him, Dr. Hodgson some time before having sent my word to h -
through Rector that he was right about it (pp. 370, 341). Then
went on with a message for me. The first was : "I am thinking * .
the time some years ago when I went into the mountains for a chan
with him, and the trip we had to the lake after we left the camp, ai -
I have often thought of this." There follows immediately a loi
account of an accident to the train and engine on one trip out West .
which he said " we or I was caught." The description of the accidei
is very detailed. But father never took any trip with me to tl
mountains, and the allusion to such a trip has to be set down as falsi
though my note shows how slightly the statement would have to b
altered to be true (Note 26, p. 408). But no accident occurred on an;
trip that I or any one else can remember, though I do remember i
delay on the trip in 1861.

It was necessary after the long account of the accident to give him
the spectacle case to " hold him." He recognised it, though this fact
had no evidential value. But there was a very pretty piece of dramatic
play connected with it. Rector saw the effect of the effort to describe
the accident and asked for a book. Dr. Hodgson gave the tin spectacle
case, saying that this was all he had with him. Through Rector the
recognition was made and the case called a " spectacle case," instead of
" glasses case," in correction of the latter, the former being his usual
name for it. This, however, is a slight matter, but when he said
directly : " I am quite sure of what T am saying to you, my friend. I
think Nannie will remember this also very well. You might speak to
her about it or ask James to do so," he indicated a correct appreciation
of the situation, and was correct as to the source for confirmation
of his statements about the existence of the case for years in the
family — supposing that this was the usual name intended for my
stepmother (Cf. pp. 69, 366). The rest of the sitting was taken up with
an explanation by Dr. Hodgson of the nature of the experiment and
its object, so that my father could better understand it. He expressed
his appreciation of my desire and promised to satisfy it. The sitting
then came to an end.

lli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 49

The sitting of February 8th opens with communications from
[mperator, Hector, and Doctor, before Rector takes his place as
amanuensis in the intended communications from my father. The
reason for this is not explained on this occasion, but it is sometimes
alleged that Imperator "comes in," or writes for the purpose of
M restoring the light," as the agency by which they communicate is
called. In this connection a curious statement is made by Imperator,
just before the communications of my father begin. Through Rector
he said that it would be impossible to answer for Mr. W. on that day,
as it would necessitate using too much light, and they must give this
for " this kind gentleman, viz., Mr. Hyslop." The messages from my
father then began, as follows : —

Good morning, James. I am glad to be here again. I am your father
still who is trying to help you find me. I recall quite vividly some few
recollections which I think will interest you somewhat. I remember some
years ago of sending George some of the photos taken of the library, and
he said he would return copies after he had finished them. I also recall
the disturbance and trouble I had with one of my eyes, the left one. Do
you not remember this and the little so-called . . . what . . .
P . . . A . . . yes I hear. Pad. Pad. I had a peculiar mark which you
will recall, at the back of the ears [ear ?] (p. 377).

The first matter of interest in this passage is the evident supposition
of my father that he is communicating with me directly, and he does
not discover until later (p. 379) that he is talking to Dr. Hodgson.
But he shows a memory of the conversation with Dr. Hodgson in the
previous sitting, where the object of the sittings was explained, and
the incidents here mentioned are a clear effort to fulfil the promise
there made. But the first one has little truth in it. Father had no
" library " proper. He kept his books and did his reading in what
he called, with everybody in his neighbourhood, the sitting-room. I
find in these sittings, however, that " library " is uniformly employed
for just this room in his house. But he never had any photographs
of it taken. He had sent my brother, on the occasion of the latter's
marriage, photos of himself and our mother, which hung in a room
upstairs, and my brother has them yet. But there was nothing said
or expected about getting copies of them returned. This was in 1884.
It is worth remarking in this connection that a younger brother about
this time was engaged in canvassing for the reproduction of photo-
graphs, and secured many such from various persons to be returned
after finishing them. I cannot ascertain whether he had any of father's
for the purpose. There is nothing in the message, however, that would
lead me to suppose that this was meant. We can only conjecture its
possibility from what we know of the general sources of confusion.

The disturbance with the left eye and the spot near the left
ear were more pertinent. In response to my inquiry about tT

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

trouble with his eyes, which I had connected with what was said about
the death scene, and about any marks behind the ears, as indicated
here, I received from my stepmother a negative answer. But when I
read the record over to her this summer she noticed that the statement
was with reference to the left eye and at once and decidedly confirmed it,
stating that he often took his spectacles off and complained of trouble
with the left eye. She still said, however, that there was no mark
behind his ears, but incidentally remarked that there was a spot or
mole in front of the left ear and concealed by his side whiskers. Of
the existence of this I never knew, as I had never known my father
without whiskers. One incident may then be taken as wholly correct
and the other as nearly so.

Dr. Hodgson had asked him to tell what was in the tin box or
spectacle case, and he remarked after a pause that he used to put his
pen in it, but immediately corrected the statement, which was false,
and said that it was where he kept his " paper cutter," which was also
false. I had supposed that the allusion to a " paper cutter " was absurd
in any case, as I knew that father's reading never required such an
implement. He had not bought a book for forty years and none of his
papers required cutting, so I rejected the allusion as false. But on
inquiry I found that my brother Frank had made him a small paper
cutter for opening his letters and that he usually carried it in his vest
pocket. But his pen was actually in this tin box at the sitting and
the box had not yet been opened. He then made an allusion to his
knife, which has already been quoted, and asked to go away for a
minute and return (p. 378).

As soon as he returned, which was in a few moments evidently, as
little writing had been done in the meantime, he at once seemed
clearer, and recognised that it was not I to whom he was communica-
ting : " Here I am. Yes, I see, you are not really James, but his
friend. Glad I am to know you. (R. H. : I am very glad). Yes, I
remember I used to have this little case on my desk a great deal.
Yes. And I am sure I used to place my spectacles in it. Yes,
and some time my paper cutter" (p. 379). It was probably not
this but the leather spectacle case that he kept on his desk at
times. But he kept his gold spectacles in this tin case, and the
•case in his trousers pocket, I believe the trousers that he wore
•on special occasions such as going to church, etc. But he never
put his paper cutter in the case, at least, according to the memory
of any one living. A moment later Dr. Hodgson asked him again to
say what was in the box and the reply was, "Looks like my glasses."
His gold glasses were in it, but the statement, though correct, is not
important, as it might be guessed from the nature of the case. No
^clairvoyance is indicated by the experiment.

Digitized by

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.

His favourite book, Anderson's " Lectures on Theology," was shortly
afterwards presented, and before the title of it was mentioned to him
there was a confused attempt at giving it in the word Ferdinand.
Then Dr. Hodgson asked him the question which I had sent about
other medicines than those already mentioned. He was then given
until the next sitting to think it over, and after some communications
from Prudens and Rector, the sitting came to a close with but a few
evidential incidents from my father. But the dramatic play through-
out was a most interesting feature of the sitting, as it marked a
singular contrast between the intelligent and clear conversation of the
trance personalities and the difficulties and confusions attending the
efforts of my father; — a fact of some importance as showing that we
cannot attribute the difficulties of intelligent communication to the
subjective condition of the medium, for in this case we should have to
expect the confusion of a communicator coinciding with that of the
trance personalities, which seems never to occur in any way reflecting
on the spiritistic theory.

The next sitting was on February 16th. It opened correctly
enough with an attempt to mention the medicine to which the
previous day's question had reference, and which he had taken in
addition to what I had been told ; but the medicine named, morphine,
was a mistake. Some further attempt followed to name the contents
of the spectacle case, the spectacles being named, but nothing else.
While doing this, he recalled the fact that he had often heard of Dr.
Hodgson while he was "in the body," a fact that was true, as I had
mentioned Dr. Hodgson in the conversations discussed (p. 385). Some
further conversation followed with Dr. Hodgson, but it is of too little
evidential value to be repeated here. It is intelligible and consistent
with the communications generally, but has no weight. Just as Rector
remarked that he seemed " quite clear just now " and expressed the
desire to have him asked another question that I had sent on, Dr.
Hodgson put it " Do you remember Samuel Cooper, and can you say
anything about him?" There had been some difficulty between the
two men and an alienation for years followed, and I hoped to bring my
father's mind back to his old home in Ohio by it. The answer was
absurd and false with reference to Samitel Cooper. But the sequel
showed that there were some facts in the answer that were relevant
to a Joseph Cooper. As the incidents connected with the name finally
have very considerable importance I shall group together all that
pertain to this question. The answer began and was repeated later : —

He refers to the old friend of mine in the West. I remember the visits
we used to make to each other well, and the long talks we had concerning
philosophical topics. Let me think this over, James, and I will answer it
completely and tell you all about him (p. 386).

Digitized by

«/. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Not a word of this was true with reference to Samuel Cooper.
But at the next sitting, February 20th, the question was repeated to
Rector to take to him (p. 394). At the opening of the next sitting,
which was on February 22nd, he said (p. 397) : —

And the name Cooper is very clear to me also as I had a friend by the
name who was of philosophical turn of mind, and for whom I had great
respect, with whom I had some friendly discussion and correspon-
dence. I had also several tokens [ ? ] which I recollect well. One was
a photo, to which I referred when James was present, and in my collec-
tion, among ray collection. Do you recall, James, the one to which I refer ?
I know this clearly, and I have met him here. He is, if you recall, on this
side of life with me, and came some years before I did. I liked much his
philanthropic views, and as you will remember, a close companionship with
him. I am too weak to remain, will return in a moment.

Among my collection of letters you will also find several of his which I
preserved. I remember a discussion on the subject of religion with him
some years ago. Doubtless you are thinking of this also. There are many
things I can recall concerning him later. Look for my letters, also the photo
to which I refer, James.

At the sitting of May 29th, which was the first of my last series
of personal experiments, the several questions left over from Dr.
Hodgson's sittings were approached spontaneously, and after Dr.
Hodgson was sent out of the room father began : —

I am here again. I am trying to think of the Cooper school and his
interest there. Do you remember how my throat troubled me. (S. : Yes.>
I am not troubled about it, only thinking. (S. : I am glad to hear that.) I
remember my old friend Cooper very well and his interests, and he is with
me now. (S. : Yes, I am glad to hear it. Tell about him.) He is with roe
now. He maintained the same ideas throughout. And perhaps you will
recall a journey U D we took together (p. 420).

On May 30th again he said : "I have talked it over with my old
friend Cooper, and we both agree that we will very clearly speak our
minds here. We are the same friends to-day that we always were, and
James also " (p. 427). This statement only made confusion worse con-
founded from my standpoint. The James mentioned I could not
identify, but Rector went on : " Let me speak, R. There is a gentleman
on our side named J ames also. Blindly do not get the one here confused
with the one in the body " (p. 427). This is an interesting piece of
dramatic play. I thought of my uncle James Carruthers, but, as
my uncle James McClellan communicated later, it might refer to him,
though there is no evidence here for this, and, so far as pertinence is
concerned, might be James anybody (Cf. p.' 445). It is appropriate
to add, however, that I ascertained from his living daughters that my
uncle James McClellan was a warm admirer and most probably a
personal friend of this Dr. Cooper (Cf. p. 427). In the sitting of

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 53

May 31st, near the close (p. 445), he said again, coming to the subject

1 want to tell you all . . . Samuel Cooper. You remember you asked
me what I knew of him. Did you think I was no longer friend of his ? I had
several letters which he wrote to me concerning our difference of opinion,
and I think they were with you. Have you got them ? (S. : I shall look
them up. Do you remember any other differences with him ?) I think I do
on the subject of this very question, his religious views.

Immediately following, father begins to ask about his family, and
then remarks that he is getting confused and leaves (p. 445). On
June 1st (p. 452), just after my sister Annie gave a long communica-
tion, my father suddenly broke in : —

Tea, I am hack again now. I heard you say it was strange I could not
tell you more about Cooper. What did you mean by that ? (S. : I wanted
to know if you remembered anything about the dogs killing sheep ?)
[Excitement in hand.] Oh, I should think I did. Yes, I do very well, but I
have forgotten all about it. This was what we had the discussion about, and
I made it unpleas[ant] for him. Yes, very well, James, but just what you
asked me this for I could not quite make out as he was no relation of mine. I
remember it all very well and if I could have recalled what you were getting
at I would have tried to tell you, but I see him seldom, and I referred to
him only because you asked me about him. (S. : Yes. All right, father, I
wanted it for my scientific purpose.) Oh yes. Why did you not just remind
me of it? Well, I will work for you and to remind you of other things
quite as good. But don't hurry me, and in time I can talk to you just as I
used to.

The excitement in the hand and the reference to the unpleasantness
were perfectly pertinent, though it left all else that had been connected
with the name of Cooper in its original obscurity. This Samuel Cooper's
dog had taken part in killing some of father's sheep, and some un-
pleasantness arose in connection with the shooting of the dog, and
the two remained unfriendly for years, when they were finally recon-
ciled in a beautiful manner a short time before Mr. Cooper's death.
But it is strange that this incident in their lives was not recalled at
once by my father.

When I went West to look up some incidents in these sittings, I
was explaining the confusion and error in these messages about Mr.
Cooper, and my mother remarked that father was well acquainted with
Dr. Joseph Cooper, of Alleghany Theological Seminary, and that he had
probably corresponded with him at one time. She added that father
always spoke of him in the highest terms, and made it a point to see him
when he could at the synodical meetings of the United Presbyterian
Church, I probably have heard of the man, but I certainly knew nothing
of father's interest in him, and still less of certain incidents in the

spontaneously :

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

communications of great pertinence. The allusion to his being a friend
out West is not strictly true ; but father knew of the Cooper Memorial
School at Sterling, Kansas, which was built in memory of this Dr.
Cooper (Note 39, p. 499). Father's trip to Kansas with my stepmother
was a few years before the building of this Memorial School.1 All the
language applied to his being of a philosophical turn of mind is strictly
correct, and from what I learn of his opinions and character he was
just the man for father to correspond with about the time of the for-
mation of the U. P. Church in 1858. What had therefore appeared
originally as nonsense and false turns out to have a pertinence that
was wholly unexpected, especially as a means for examining the claims
of telepathy. The reference to " tokens " is very interesting. They
were little coin-like pieces of metal that were used at the communion
services of the church of which my father was a member. This was a
name by which they were always called. My father was the ruling
elder, and it was his duty to keep these tokens in security. When the
congregation at his old home was dissolved he put the tokens away in
a chamois skin bag, and after his death they came into my possession.
I kept them as a memento. The connection in which they are men-
tioned is the most interesting part of the message (See Note 29, p.410).

To return to Dr. Hodgson's sitting of February 16th, this first
allusion to the Cooper incidents was followed by the second mention of
his skull-cap and then by an inquiry sent through Rector for " a special
pen or quill, as he calls it, with which he used to write " (p. 387). In
a moment he said : " I recall a thin black coat or dressing gown affair
I used to wear mornings, I can see myself sitting in my old armchair
before the open fire in the library reading over the paper. Look at me
there, James, and see me in the gown I refer to and answer me."
After some allusions to me he said : " As I grew older, we grew together,
i.e., companionable, as we were much together, and Nannie I often
think of her and her faithfulness to me. Did you realise that my
bronchial trouble disturbed me much 1 " (p. 387).

My father used a quill pen constantly in earlier life, and before he
got the gold pen which was in the spectacle case, I remember his
making quill pens for me. My stepmother says he did have a thin
black coat for morning wear in the house, and I remember him well in
his armchair before the open fire reading his paper. In fact, he did

1 The statement made in the New York Independent (Vol. LIL, p. 750), that my
father had visited the Cooper Memorial School with my stepmother in 1884 is incor-
rect. My stepmother knew of this institution, and in my conversation with her
about the Cooper inoidents I misunderstood an oral statement about the visit to
Kansas in 1884 with father to l>e that they had visited this school She corrected my
error soon after reading the article. The " Cooper School" was not built until several
years later {Cf. p. 500).

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.

all his reading in it. But I knew nothing of a " thin black coat " con-
nected with his habits. I find from my stepmother that he did use such
a coat as here described during the last year or two of his life when I
knew little or nothing of his personal habits. We did grow more com-
panionable as he grew older, and were much together when we were
together at all. My visits were not frequent after 1889. He became
more reconciled with my free-thought, as he found that there were
points of agreement between us that he had hardly expected. The
allusion to the faithfulness of Nannie is very pertinent, assuming that
the name is a mistake for my stepmother, as later developments
unequivocally indicate is the case. He was an object of her special
care for the last six or seven years, and more or less for twenty
years of his life. The allusion to bronchial trouble explains itself
after my statement regarding his cancer of the larynx. It is interest-
ing also to remark that the black coat, the reading of his paper in the
armchair and the open fire, the bronchial trouble and the black skull
cup were contemporaneous with the time when he had special reason
to think of my stepmother in the manner indicated here.

Shortly afterwards he put a question regarding my sister Annie, and
there followed some very remarkable passages between him and Dr.
Hodgson, that I must give in full : —

Do you remember your sister Annie ? (Did James have a sister Annie ?)
Tea. (All right. I will tell him.) She is here with me, and she is calling
to you. (Mr. Hyslop.) Yea, I hear you. What do you wish 'I

(It is curious. I know your son James very well, and we are interested
together in this work. I have a sister Annie also, and she is still in the
body, and I think your views in the body were probably not unlike my own
father's, and you might be interested to meet my father over there, and you
can talk to him about James, and perhaps he will tell you something about
me. I think you and my father would get along very well. )

Well, I am glad to know this, and I will surely look him up [Cf. p. 389.]
but you will remember one thing, and that is that my Annie is not yours.
(Yea, I understand. She's with you.) Yes, and I will surely find your father
and know him. These kind friends will help me to find him. (Yes, they will :
they will introduce you to him. I shall be very pleased if thoy will.)
Was he very orthodox do you think ? (Fairly so.) Well, there is no need
for it here. However, we won't discuss that until later, when we know
each other better. (He was a Wesleyan Methodist.) Well this, of course,
was more or less orthodox. (Yes. Oh yes, indeed.) Exactly, well we will
get on finely soon. I know this perfectly well. But I must get accustomed
to this method of speech, and see how I can best express my thoughts to
you. (Yes. ) I am now thinking of my own things and concerns. I can
preach myself very well. Ask my son if this is not so. [Of. p. 432.] I
recall many things which I would gladly have changed if it had been as clear
to me as it is now. I wish I could take my knife a moment, as it will . . .
[Knife from parcel 0, given to hand.] It will help me when I return to you.

H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

I do not think I can say more to you now. (Well, I am very pleased to
have had this talk with you, and I am sure that James will be glad to read ^
what you told me about the medicine and gown and reading the paper and
so on.) Well, I have so many things to say of much greater importance
in a way later, when I can fully and clearly express myself. I am anxious
to do much for him. (Yes.) Will you excuse me. I must go. (Yes,
certainly. Good-bye for the present. Thank you very much.) [Excite-
ment.] There is one tune going through my mind. Listen. Nearer my
God to Thee. Hyslop." The sitting then came to an end (pp. 389-390).

The mention of my sister Annie was pertinent, and the conversa-
tion with Dr. Hodgson perfectly appreciative and intelligible, as every
one acquainted with Calvinism and Wesleyanism will recognise. My
father was a Calvinist. It was a curious episode to ask if Dr.
Hodgson's father was orthodox, after Dr. Hodgson expressed the
probability that his father and mine would agree in their views, and
the statement, in reply to Dr. Hodgson's characterisation of his father
as a Wesleyan, that this was " more or less orthodox " could be treated
as a mediumistic echo of Dr. Hodgson's " fairly so " in reply to father's
question. Hence, when I read the quotation from the hymn " Nearer
my God to Thee," which will appear so pertinent to readers generally, it
can be imagined how opposed to personal identity it was, if I say that
my father was always strictly opposed to hymn-singing in any form of
worship. He belonged to a denomination which would not tolerate it.
The quotation thus appeared to me to be a fine case of mediumistic
interpretation from the secondary consciousness, which we might
suppose familiar enough with Wesleyanism to venture on some hymn
after allusion to that creed. There was the lone allusion by father to
his " preaching" himself which suggested identity and which was true of
him, but not as a lay preacher, for he would not accept any right to
preach as that term is usually understood, until the " laying on of the
hands " was performed on some one specially prepared for the work.
But the church which he attended could not have services all the year
round, and as he would not allow us to attend any other church service
for many years, and until his own church was dissolved, he would read
a sermon to us or comment on a chapter in the Bible on Sundays when
we had no preaching, and he called this a substitute for the sermon.

But when calling my stepmother's attention to the terrible way in
which the allusion to this hymn told against my father's personal
identity, she decidedly agreed with my judgment, but innocently
remarked, without seeing the point, that father had a special dislike for
this very hymn; and used often to express his surprise that orthodox
peojjle could sing a Unitarian hymn ! The discovery of this fact,
absolutely unknown to me, completely changes the whole colouring of
the conversation. This, together with the allusion to his preaching,

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 57

explains the reference to what he " would have gladly changed if it
had been as clear as it is now," and also the expression that there
was ?* no need of orthodoxy " there. There is thus a distinct under-
current of changed and consistent conviction throughout it all, with
the two evidential facts of his " preaching " and of the reference to the
hymn that ought naturally to be suggested in this connection, and
when his aversion to it is known in connection with this evident
change of feeling, it turns into one of the most remarkable passages
in the record (Of. pp. 340, 424).

Its importance and cogency are very much strengthened by father's
spontaneous statement at the opening of his communications at my
last sitting, June 8th (p. 490). He addressed Dr. Hodgson as follows :
" I know your father very well. (R. H. : I am very pleased that you have
made his acquaintance.) I find our minds were not quite the same
when on earth, but our ideas of God ivere" This is undoubtedly
correct in its import, and shows an interesting memory adjusted
to the situation. But it contradicts the impression that Dr.
Hodgson's language on that occasion was calculated to make in expres-
sing the likelihood that their views would agree. I could have said at
the time, had I been present, that they would not agree.

At Dr. Hodgson's sitting of February 20th, following the one that
I have been discussing, the first incident regarded the Munyon's
Germicide which I have already mentioned. Then a long conversation
took place between Rector and Dr. Hodgson regarding the best way to
conduct the experiments with my father. When this was over, the
questions about Samuel Cooper and the strychnine were repeated, and
the spectacle case was put into the hand again. Some of the same
references to paper-cutter, etc., that were made before were given again,
and mention made of a writing pad, some " number rests," and two
bottles that used to stand on his desk, one of them round and the other
square. My mother did not recall all of these at first, owing probably
to the nature of my questions, but did afterwards, and my brother
remembers the bottles, one an ink and the other a mucilage bottle
distinctly. The writing pad was correct and the " number [of] rests " if
they refer to the shelves on his desk, used as rests, is correct. But
nothing more of importance occurred in this sitting.

The next sitting by Dr. Hodgson was held on February 22nd. The
first references were to the medicine, a photo and the Cooper incident,
already discussed. After closing this he began telling about a cane,
which, though the story seems much confused, issues in such an impor-
tant incident that it must be given at length.

Now what can I do for you ? Do you remember the stick I used to carry,
with the turn in the end, on which I carved my initials ? If so, what
have you done with it ? They are in the end. (Yes, I understand.) I used

58 H. Hyslop, Ph.D. [part

to use it for emphasising expression occasionally. [Hand strikes pencil on
book several times.] (Thumping down ? ) [Hand keeps repeating a turning
motion.] Yes, he turns it about and then carelessly drops it . . . the
end of it. Understand? (Yes. I think so.) If not, speak now before he
becomes in any way confused. [This was Rector's statement to Dr. Hodgson,
but father proceeds] James. [The hand was apparently listening to spirit
and I turned to arrange some sheets of paper on the floor.] Look, friend
[said Rector] . . . Do you wish to go to the college this A. M. ? If so
I will remain here . . . understand ? [The hand between each word of
the first sentence above stopped writing and made a turn, somewhat like the
motion that the hand would make in wiping once round the bottom of a
basin ending palm up.] (Rector, now, in this way ?) Wait [?] [Hand turns
to spirit, then to me] (Rector, that way?) [I read the sentence over,
imitating the movements of the hand] Yes (with a twirl of the stick ?)
nervously. This is almost identical with his gestures. He is amused at our
description, friend, and seems to vaguely understand our imitation. Draws
it across his so-called knee, lets it fall by his side, still holding on to the
turned end. Hears sounds of music, to which he listens attentively, with
the exception of keeping time with the smaller end of his stick (p. 397).

When I first read this, I recalled a cane with a " turn " in it, which
I had given father myself at the request of my aunt Nannie, who
furnished the money and wished her name concealed in the affair,
telling me that the one he used was broken, as she reminded me since
this sitting. But I never knew father to carve his initials on anything.
I wrote to my stepmother to know if he had carved his initials on his,
cane, and received an emphatic negative for reply. No one seems to
have recalled another cane, a gold-headed ebony one on which his
initials were carved on the end as indicated in the message, which
had been given him by us children years before, and which had been
lost on the cars on one of his trips. It was lost by his brother-in-law,
who gave him another stout plain cane with a curved end. I had
completely forgotten this fact of the other cane at the time of the
sitting and was reminded of it on my inquiry in the West. I treated
the incidents here narrated as a confusion of the gold-headed cane
with the one that I had sent him myself. The dramatic representation
of the communicator's actions in describing something in connection
with the cane I treated as mere secondary personality. Careful inves-
tigation, however, showed that father was in the habit of thumping
this curved handled cane down on the floor or against the door, when
he could reach it, to call my stepmother, as he could not speak above
a whisper. Also the circular motion described by Dr. Hodgson might
be an attempt to reproduce an action which was very frequent with
my father, according to the statement of my stepmother, when he
was in a playful mood. He would reach out and catch her by the
arm or neck with the hook, of the cane and enjoy himself at her

Digitized by Google

XLI.J Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 59

expense watching her try to extricate herself. My brother and sister
as well as my step-mother testify that he often drew or rolled his cane
across his knees, as he was hardly ever without it in his hands, and
that there were two occasions in which he was in the habit of keeping
time with this cane. First, when he was listening to music, and
secondly, when he was in meditation upon some subject. All these
facts were wholly unknown to me (Cf. Note 36, p. 416). But at the
time the confusion was too great for me to consider the incidents as
interesting in their present shape. I resolved, however, to test my
conjecture as to the possible reference to the two canes that I had in
mind at the first opportunity that offered. I did this at my last sitting
in June.

I had given a cane with a curved handle to my father shortly
before the presidential election. On it was a representation of a " gold
bug." Some years previously father had changed his political party.
When he came to his old home in Xenia, Ohio, to die, my cousin,
Robert McClellan, the one who is a communicator in this record, came
with his wife to call on father and in the conversation expressed his
curiosity about father's politics in the question : " Well, uncle Robert,
how are you in politics now?" My father replied simply by picking up this
" gold bug " cane and shook it at my cousin, and all had a hearty laugh
about it. This incident I had from the parties present at the time
after I arrived to see my father. I found my father very much
interested in the issues of that campaign. Hence, with this incident
in mind, I resolved to kill two birds with one stone by referring to this
occasion and the cane to see if any light might be thrown on my con-
jecture already stated.

In the sitting of J une 8th I had alluded to the presidential election
and the passing of hard times as an explanation of a certain incident
(p. 494), and as soon as the allusion was understood I asked : — " Do you
remember how you shook a walking-stick at Robert McClellan about
that time 1 " Great excitement followed in the hand, and as soon as it
calmed down it wrote : —

* 4 Well I do. I never was more excited in my life. I think I was right
too. (S. : Well, who gave you that walking stick ?) " The forefinger of the
hand which had been listening to my question began tapping me on the left
temple for fully half a minute and then wrote : " Tou did, and I told him
about it. [Pointing to Dr. Hodgson.] (S. : Yes, 1 thought so. What was
on it ?) What was on it ? I think I know that it had the little top [?] I
• . . I think it had the little ring? Ring. [See cut, p. 495 J on it.'1 (S. :
I think I know what you mean by that. That is near enough. Do not
worry. You recall it well) [p. 494.]

The lines here might fairly represent an imperfect attempt to draw
the beetle or "gold bug" on the cane I gave him, or the mode of

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

mending the other cane by the tin ring. The allusion to the " top "
and " ring " had no meaning for me at the time except as mistakes.
He had referred to a cane in Dr. Hodgson's sitting on February 22nd,
which I afterwards found was probably not the one that I here
had in mind. But on my personal inquiries in the West, I ascertained
a fact of some importance that I did not know. I found that father had
mended the cane with a tin ring about four inches long. The cane is
still with my stepmother. But there is no trace in this February
sitting that father had in mind the " gold bug " cane. It was far more
natural to mention the older one that he had used for over twenty
years, and as it was his brother-in-law's substitute for the gold-headed
cane, it was natural to associate it with that on which his initials were
carved, and we can interpret the confusion as an incomplete message.
There was probably some confusion also in his own mind regarding the
matter, until he finally drew the representation of the " gold bug,"
unless we treat it as an attempt to draw the " ring " and not the
" gold bug " at all, as I had also been a party to the present of the gold-
headed cane. But, however this may be, the allusion to " the little
top " and to the " ring," before correcting the statement to the repre-
sentation of the beetle, fits the first two canes and not the one that I
gave him. But the incidents fit in one way or another all three
canes, and the liability to confusion from defective association is well
illustrated by similar illusions of my own, mentioned later (p. 228).

The second fact resulting from my inquiries, and which I did not
know at the time, refers to the excitement which father confessed on
the occasion to which my question referred. The wife of my cousin,
Robert McClellan, told me that she and her husband had to leave
the room sooner than they intended, because my father, who could
not talk above a whisper, showed so much excitement on the issues of
the campaign that they were afraid a spasm of the larynx would
come on in which he was likely to suffocate. I knew that he was
intensely interested in the campaign, but I was not told of the special
incidents of his talk with my cousin.

To summarise the case, father had three canes ; the gold-headed
cane on which his initials were carved, the stout one with the curved
handle, which had been broken and mended with a tin ring, and
the " gold bug " cane that I gave him which also had a curved handle.
The communications nominally purport to refer to but one of them.
Their fitness, however, depends on distributing the incidents among all
three canes. The initials on the end, as mentioned in the record, fit
the gold-headed cane ; the ring, curved handle, and habits of using
it in various ways fit the second ; the recognition in answer to
my question and the statement that I gave it to the communicator
fit the " gold bug " cane. The drawing is equivocal, and may fit the

xllJ Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 61

second and last. Consequently, on the assumption that confusion is
certain to be an incident of communication, the statements may have
evidential value. Otherwise they obtain little or no importance.

Immediately after the cane incident in the sitting of February
22nd, Dr. Hodgson read a letter that I had sent for the purpose of
trying to improve the communications and of starting associations
belonging to my father's life in Ohio. We were both dissatisfied with
the results of the previous sittings. I shall not repeat the letter
here, nor shall I quote all that he said in reply, as part of it, though
accurate enough, is not evidential. In the letter I referred to the time
that I started to college, and because my father had showed consider-
able emotion on the occasion, I asked, " Do you remember how you
felt then ? " The reply contained at first the sentiment and thought of
what he said to me on that occasion, but is wholly non-evidential,
though it is literally true that he told me he did not wish me to want
for anything. But after the end of the letter he said to Dr. Hodgson,
" God bless you, my son. Do you remember this expression ? I wish
you to know that to me James was all I could ask for a son, and
when I left him or he left me I was heart-broken in one sense, but I
felt that I had much to look forward to." The pertinence of this
statement is apparent when I say that on the morning that he put me
on the train for college, the first time I had ever been left to my own
responsibility, he being conscious of the temptations to which I would
be exposed out of his sight and myself unacquainted with the world,
after giving me the advice mentioned, he bade me good-bye and
broke down crying, the only time that I ever saw him shed tears in
my life. In important partings like this father always bade me good-
bye with " God bless you."

In the letter I also alluded to my Aunt Nannie's care for us,
and said : " I remember, too, how we used to go to church." Mrs.
Piper's hand bowed in prayer for a few moments, and then the reply
came : —

"I remember the coach very well, and the roughness of the roads
and country. I also remember Aunt Nannie and her motherly advice to you
&U, and I look back to her with a great gratitude for her kindness to us all.
Do you remember Ohio, James, OHIO . . . and anything about
Bartlett. I have not seen him yet, but hope to in time. I am trying
to think of the principal of your school and what he said to me about George.
I am still troubled about him, and if you can help me in any way by
sending me anything encouraging about him I shall feel better I know."
After some further conversation with Dr. Hodgson about his concern for my
brother, he added : " You see I left with this on my mind, and I cannot
dispose of it until I have learned from James that he will not feel troubled
in this regard. We had our own thoughts and anxieties together regarding
this and Aunt Nannie also " (p. 401).

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

This is also a remarkable passage. Every incident of it is true and |
pertinent, except the reference to Bartlett, which I cannot explain,
except as a possible reference to Bartlett pears, of which father was j
very fond and to whose culture he had devoted some unsuccessful ,
efforts, or to Ba,rtlowf the name of the township in Ohio, in which my
brother George lives. The mention of the " rough roads and country "
was very pertinent, for they were very rough at the time in mind,
when my aunt was keeping house for father after the death of my
mother (cf. p. 402). " Carriage " is the word father would use, |
but probably Rector is more familiar with "coach." Ohio was
his old home. The school incident was this. My brother George
wished to go to college, but had become interested in society while at
the High School, and on this account father hesitated to send him.
In the summer of 1876 I was riding out of town with my father in a
spring wagon, and we talked the question over about my brother, and
I urged father to try him. He then told me that he had talked the
matter over with the principal of the High School, and thought he
could not undertake it. There were several principals during the time
of my brother's attendance at the High School. One of them is dead.
The one who most probably talked with my father is named Bonner,
and is still living. On inquiry I find that I am the only person living
that knows or remembers the incident. A year or so later my brother
left home to take charge of father's land in the northern part of Ohio,
and in the years that followed the management of land there for father,
my aunt Nannie and myself — my aunt Eliza leaving her small interest in
it to my father's care — my brother's loss of money and dilatory methods
of doing business were a source of much worry and trouble to all three
of us.

The special pertinence of all this is too apparent for further proof
or comment. Rector followed it, while father was resting, with some
advice that I should send something in the way of a message to get the
anxiety expressed off my father's mind, and when father returned he
alluded to the cap again in connection with the name " Nannie "
(p. 406). Nothing more of importance was said at this sitting, which
soon after came to a close. There were some interesting explanations
of father's state of mind, and the prospect that he would in time be as
good a communicator as another person named (p. 407).

The next series of sittings were personal, and were eight in number.
In the first of these, on May 29th, the first allusion was to the
Maltine incident already discussed (p. 418), which was an attempt tc
answer the question asked by me through Dr. Hodgson at an earlier
sitting. One curious allusion here, apparently to what I was doing in
the experiments on the identification of personality, is interesting
(p. 537), though it is not clear enough to make it evidential (p. 268).

xli.] Observation of Certain Trance Phenomena.

He said (p. 419) : " Do not go more to that place. I am not there, and
you cannot find me if you go. (S. : What place is that, father 1) With
the younger men trying to find me. They are not light, and I cannot
reach you there." Soon after my first four sittings in December I had
been conducting with my students the experiments in Appendix V.,
and this was the first sitting at which I was present since those
experiments. He then asked to know what " Nani " said about the
paper, having reference to his own injunction at one of Dr. Hodgson's
sittings to ask her about it (p. 419). He showed himself anxious all
along to have his reading the paper in his armchair identified. An
allusion to my mother and sister Annie followed, and after this a
short passage connected with our conversations on spirit communica-
tions. He then asked me if I remembered what he told me on my
departure for school, and I repeated my desire to know the name of
the school. But my attempt failed and later another institution to
which I went afterward was hinted at very clearly (p. 449). Shortly
after, and during Dr. Hodgson's absence from the room, I was asked :
" And do you remember John 1 He has just come to greet you. And
do you remember anything about Lucy. I say Lucy. She was Nannie's
p] cousin " (p. 421). This was nothing but confusion to me at the time.
But later events show the connection that enables me to put an intelligible
meaning on the passage. Lucy is the name of Robert McClellan's
wife, and she is still living, her husband having died a year later
than my father. She was evidently intended in the next commu-
nication from my father. John was the name of Robert McClellan's
grandfather. But the statement that this Lucy is " Nannie's cousin "
is wholly false. The doubt about the reading of the word for
44 Nannie" enables us to suggest that possibly it was a mistake for
"Annie," my sister, in which case the statement is correct. It is
not impossible to put this interpretation on the original writing.
But I do not claim this conjectural reading as evidential.

A confused message about my " brother F . ." terminated father's
communications, and my sister took his place and said a few words
(p. 421). She correctly stated two facts, that she had died before
father and that it was long ago. On father's return he made some
allusion to a church, and a moment afterwards said, " And perhaps
you will recall an old friend of mine who was a doctor, and
who was a little peculiar in regard to the subject of religion,
and with whom I had many long talks. A man small of stature
and more or less of mind. It has gone from me — i.e., his name, but it
will come back to me " (p. 421.) This suggested a doctor, Harvey
McClellan, with whom I knew father had had long talks on religion,
and a little later in the same sitting (p. 425) an apparent attempt to
give the name as father left was made in the name Henry p] McAllan

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

[1]. On J une 6th (p. 473) father asked me : " What was the name of
that Dr. I cannot think of his name." This occurred soon after my
uncle James McCleilan had communicated. Then on June 8th (p. 491)
my father said, without any pertinent connections that are traceable :
" There was a Henry [?] McCleilan also. I think you may know this.
He was, I think, an uncle of the McCleilan boys." The statements
regarding stature and religious views would be equally or more
applicable to father's dentist, who was always called Doctor, and whose
name, however, was never mentioned at all at the sittings. It is,
unfortunately, not made clear whether the doubtful " Henry McCleilan "
was intended by the person described or not.

Immediately following this allusion to a doctor on May 29th
(p. 422) father began a communication having much interest in spite
of its confusion.

Do you remember McCollum [?] (S. : McAllum.) (R.H. : McCollum.)
(S. : No, know what it is.) (S. : Spell it again.) McAllum. (S. : How
was he related to you ?) He was McAllan [?] (S. : Yes, that's it.) Don't
you U D. who I mean ? He came over some time ago. (Yes, I remember.
Tell.) What about your uncle? (S. : Which uncle do you mean?) I
mean ... let me hear once more ... I mean Charles. (S.
to R. H. : That's not quite right. Shall I make him spell it out ?) (R. H. :
Yes.) You must remember him. (S. : Yes, I remember him. But please
spell out the name in full.) In full. (S. : The name of Charles is not right >
In full did you say ? (S. : Yes.) C 1 a R 1 . . . [Hand signifies dissent.]
Speak it more loudly. C 1 or R . . . C. [pause] (S. : That's Clark.)
C Ira R a k E. Clark (S. : That's right.) E (S. : Not quite) son [?)
. . . there are some more which I will ... 1 say. He is here
himself speaking it for me. Clarke. Clarance. Speak it louder friend.
Well he is uncle C lauc [?] C 1 a r a k e. I will wait for it. It sounds
very like it. Clarke. Charles [?] Well, never mind. Don't try. Wait a
moment and do not hurry . . . yes and McAllan. Well you must
know him. I had a cousin by that name. Don't you remember it.

I saw in the " McCollum " and " McAllan " an attempt to give the
name McCleilan, and it was confirmed both by the previous name
Lucy, which was that of his wife, still living, and by the statement
that " he came over some time ago." The inference, however, is
confirmed by later events. He was not my father's cousin, but his
nephew, and my cousin. The confusion and error thus have an
interest, and no less is this the fact with the attempt to give the name
of my uncle, which never succeeded. They never got nearer his name,
which was Carruthers, than Clarke or Charles. (Gf. Footnote p. 423.)

The next question that I was asked was : " Where is George % X
often think of him, but I do not worry any more about him," both the
name and the implication in the term " worry " being correct, and in a>
moment came the quick communication : " Do you remember Thorn

jll) Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 65

. . . Tom . . . and what has he done with him. I feel quite
. . . yes . . . yes, all right ... I mean the horse " (p. 423).

We had an old faithful horse by the name of Tom, that used to
get excited and work too hard if fretted in any way, and father always
cautioned us against using the whip on him, and when the horse became
too old to work, pensioned him, so to speak, and allowed him to die on
the farm. I find by correspondence with the brother named here that
he buried the horse after its death. This was after I had finally left
home, and was somewhere about 1880 or later. The last part of the
message has a most important interest. After the confusion with the
names of my uncle and cousin, Rector evidently wanted this name to
be completed, supposing apparently that father was trying to give the
name of some person, and seems to have asked him if he was clear.
Father's answer shows that he felt clear about it, and the sudden
explanation of what he meant by saying that he meant the horse
both determined the evidential value of the incident, and satisfied
Rector as to the situation.

He then expressed wonder as to what my sister meant by referring
to a sled, which she had done a little earlier, and then came : "James,
are you waiting for me 1 I used to read the paper in my chair, but
strange they none of them remember it. Did you write to Nannie
about it, James? . . . And the little tool I used for my feet.
He says no. Stool. Yes, I had for my feet. Cannot you remem-
ber f (8. : When was this 1) Just before I came here " (p. 424.)

Father had a stool for his feet, but always refused to use it.
When my stepmother would offer it to him for propping his feet up
near the stove, he would put it aside and thrust his feet direct into
the oven to warm them This was very frequent during the last
year of his life. The chair incident and reading his paper explain
themselves and represent the facts already mentioned (p. 387).

After my father's confessing a change of views about the Bible,
which might be construed as an objection to identity, a few brief
communications from my sister Annie concluded the sitting.

At the sitting of May 30th, the first allusion was to the Cooper
incident, and then there came a long and confused series of communi-
cations apparently from my cousin Robert McClellan (p. 427). The
evidence that he was the real communicator comes later. The fact to
be noted here is his appearance personally after my father's allusion to
him in the previous sitting (p. 423).

My father followed my cousin, and first made an allusion to the
fatal nature of his illness, and said that nothing would have done him
any good — which was undoubtedly true — referred to my being tired,
and repeated the advice which he had been accustomed to give me,
saying : " You know how I used to talk to you about overdoing

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

anything, and you will remember your tireless energy." Pertinently in
this connection, as he always pointed to his own condition as an
illustration of overwork, he asked : " Do you remember when I got
hurt 1 " and made a clear and correct statement about the fire incident i
(p. 430). After explaining his own confusion in these communica-
tions, he began the following complicated message : —

Charles. (S. : Is this brother Charles ?) Tee, and John. I just called
them. (S. : What John is this ?) Brother John. (S. : Is this brother
Charles speaking ?) Tes, and father. We are both speaking. Chester [f]
Clarke [f] and Charles [?] Tes. Oh speak, James. Help me to keep my
thoughts clear. (S. : Tes, I think you are uncle, are you not ?) No, it is I,
your father, who is speaking, and I am telling you about Charles and John.
(S. : What John is that ? I remember Charles, but not John, unless it is
John some one else.) McJohn. There are two of the Mclellen over here.
(8. : Yes.) And this one is John. (S. : Yes. Do you remember where
he lived on earth ?) I do. What . . . (S. : Do you remember where
he lived on earth ? I remember John McClellan.) I don't believe I under-
stand just what you said, James. (S. : Do you remember where he lived on
earth ?) Ohio. Was it that you meant? (S. : That is right.) I told it I
thought before (p. 431).

Except for later developments and inquiries I could give no
meaning whatever to this passage. I suspected who was meant by the
"Chester," etc., but father had no brother John or brother of any
kind. This, however, was cleared up by the evident intention to speak
of John McClellan, who was named spontaneously a minute later. I
knew but one John McClellan, and that was the treasurer of the
institution in Ohio to which my father sent me. So much then ap-
peared true in the message ; but it implied, as an earlier use of the
name John with the statement that he had come to greet me, that he
was not living. Here was a good test, and I inquired only to find
that the John McClellan that I had in mind was still living. But this
mistake was spontaneously corrected by my uncle, James McClellan later
(p. 470), giving John as the name of his father who had died many
years ago, and saying that his brother John, whom I had had in mind,
was coming soon (p. 471). He also lived in Ohio. The "Chester,"
" Clark," " Charles," etc., were, as I think, attempts at my uncle
Carruthers, and the first Charles was the name of my brother.

After a pertinent allusion to setting an "example for his sons,"
which expressed the main moral purpose and characteristic of his life,
uttered here from a misunderstanding of a statement of mine, He
apologises for his mistakes and said, "There was another one here
whom you must have forgotten. Do you remember Mary Ann Anne 1
(S. : Well, the rest of it.) Do you remember Mary Anne Hyslop 1
(S. : Yes I do. What relation was she to met) Have you forgotten

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 67

your mother? (S. : No, no, father. I have not forgotten, but I
wanted to see it written out here.) Well, speak to her, my boy"
(p. 432). Some non-evidential communications at once came from her,
and her initials were signed at the close of them. The message had her
religious nature in it, but no interesting facts. Her correct name was
Martha Ann Hyslop. " Mary " was, I suppose, Rector's mistake for
"Martha" (Cf. p. 481 and mistake of "Nannie" for "Maggie," pp. 69,
342,365).

Following my mother and her religious tone of thought my father
continued, "James, do you remember my preaching] (S. : I re-
member you used to talk and read to us about the sermons) and
. . . Sunday . . . mornings ... at home 1 (S. : Yes,
I remember that well.) Do you remember the dining-room and
prayers t " (p. 432). I have already explained (pp. 432-433) how father
used to spend the Sundays, or Sabbaths as he would invariably say
himself, on which we had no preaching, and morning prayers were
said invariably in the " dining " room if that term be given the flexi-
bility necessary to fit the case. But we had two rooms that could be
given that name. We dined usually in the kitchen except when com-
pany was present, when we took what we sometimes called a dining
and sometimes a sitting-room Prayers were held as often in one as in
the other of these rooms. . But the use of " Sunday " is interesting, as
it is against identity. The hesitation, however, and the fact that G. P.
is assisting, as indicated a few minutes later (p. 434), are curiously
suggestive. The Imperator group of personalities always use the word
" Sabbath." Rector was the amanuensis here. Hence it is interesting
to see the word " Sunday," which G. P. would always use, written
out when he is assisting. Immediately following this passage is
an interesting one regarding my brother, and it has a most intimate
internal connection with the allusion to the morning prayers. The
evidences of this are too personal to publish, except that I shall say
that this brother was a special object of father's prayers and life-long
religious solicitude. He said here, "Think there is one of the boys I
have not yet mentioned. Isn't there ? (S. : Yes. I think so. Yes, I
think you have not mentioned him very clearly.) [I had my brother
Frank in mind, whose name had not been given in this form, but in
the form that was not generally used, that of Francis (p. 433).] Well,
I was not sure, but I would like to reach to brother Robert myself
. . . Robert cousin " (p. 433). The pertinence of this is its recog-
nition of what my cousin had said about this brother (p. 427). He had
always shown the same interest in him as my father. This cousin's
name, already given, was Robert McClellan, and hence we have both
the correct names given here and the recognition that one of th*
persons mentioned had mentioned the other.

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

Immediately following this was an allusion to his library and
books, and then a confused attempt to give the name of my half-sister,
in which G. P. figures confessedly (p. 434). After my deliberate assist-
ance in recognising one letter of it, it is not necessary to lay any stress
upon the virtual success in getting it. Following some of Rector's
remarks about my father's memory, father continued : "James, do you
remember a little bridge we used to cross in going up to the church 1
(S. : Yes, I remember the bridge and the creek.) Yes, I do very
well. I do also. Mother just called my mind to it " (p. 434). This is
a little equivocal, as I cannot tell whether he refers to his own mother
or to mine. The reference to " mother " would apply to both of them,
though it is hardly specific enough to give it evidential value.

Father then returns to my sister : " Hettie. Tell me about her. Does
she ever speak of me. I don't suppose you can tell because you are not
with her often. James, I am * * [undec.] I am glad he [1] is . . .
he is . . . here comes John again, we will be obliged to let him go for
the present." " And if you will speak to me, James, I will tell you that
cousin Annie is very anxious to send her love to H. H. Hettie. (S. : I
will give her love to her.) And do you remember anything of Ruth ? I
often hear her speak of her, and . . . she is only a friend I think."
The sitting then came to an end (p. 435).

My father shows a perfectly correct appreciation of the facts when
he said that I do not often see my sister, as the statement implies the
situation consciously recognised and stated elsewhere (p. 375), that
I was in New York and my sister not. I seldom see her.

There are two possible interpretations of the references to " cousin
Annie," "Hettie" and "Ruth." Both of them have the same
pertinence. My notes will explain them (p. 505).

At the next sitting, May 31st, father first referred to " the thought
theory " and Swedenborg (p. 438), and then this was followed by a
long communication, apparently from my cousin, as the latter part of the
message indicates, but ostensibly from the " John " of earlier communi-
cations. This must be noticed under the head of my cousin. He was
followed by my brother Charles. Father tried again and failed. Tt
was explained that my father was " a little dazed," and G. P. broke
in with the statement, " I am coming H. to help out," and inquired
of Dr. Hodgson about a Dr. Meredith. In a minute or two father
began : " I wish you would hear me out, James, my son. I am going
to try and keep my thoughts straight. Yes, I will do my best for you.
How is Franks 1 (S. : Frank is much better.) I thought he might
<come to us for awhile, but we have not seen him yet" (p. 441). My
brother Frank was an invalid at the time of father's death, and was
unable even to be present at the funeral. My father thought he would
not recover. I had learned a short time before the sitting that his health.

Digitized by Google

XLi] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 69

had been recovered. The pertinence of the remark about him would
have been spoiled by my statement here, had it not been that father's
question about him first implied the situation before I had said anything.
Then followed a pertinent question from him, showing that he had
referred to this brother in order to make sure that he had mentioned all
the members of the family, and my answer to it opened up the most
interesting incident of the whole record. I saw my opportunity to
suggest the giving of the name of my stepmother, which I had only
conjectured from the incidents before mentioned.

But I must summarise here the allusions that stimulated a careful
inquiry into the mistake connected with the name of my stepmother.
A curious confusion had persisted in regard to this until I directly
asked for the name. The name " Nannie " with the prefix " aunt" was
several times used for my aunt by that name, and where the incidents
and connections fitted this aunt. But it was also often used without
that prefix where the incidents and connections fitted only my step-
mother, whose name was Maggie.

I did not suspect the confusion of " Nannie " with " Maggie " on
December 27th in the use of " Nani " and "Mnni " (p. 343), as father
had a little before referred, as I supposed, to his sister, and gave what
we read at the time as " Nannie," but later as " Mannie." Besides
most that was said, except the reference to the glasses, would apply to
this sister, though more pertinently to my stepmother (Cf. Note 25,
p. 365). But in Dr. Hodgson's sitting of February 7th, father, speak-
ing of his spectacle case, said, " I think Nannie will remember this
also." February 16th my father mentioned the cap incident, his dress-
ing gown and his bronchial trouble (p. 387-8) in connection with the
name "Nannie" without the prefix "aunt" and he also remarked,
"I often think of her faithfulness to me." All this applied to
my stepmother and not to my aunt. Again on February 22nd, in
the last sitting by Dr. Hodgson, the cap was mentioned a second time,
and connected with the name " Nannie " without the prefix " aunt,"
and all the other incidents in the same connection fitted my stepmother
and not my aunt. Then at the sitting of May 29th, when I was
present, father asked, "What was it Nani said about the paper?"
(p. 419), referring to the incident of reading his paper in the chair,
mentioned in Dr. Hodgson's earlier sitting (p. 387). There was no
reason whatever thus to refer to my aunt, as only my step-
mother, brother, and sister knew the facts. Later in the sitting of
the 29th, father recurs to the same incident and asks, " Did you write
to Nannie about it, James 1 papers. . . " (p. 424). After mentioning
my brother Frank for the purpose indicated, the record proceeds : —

"Have I overlooked any one, James? I will not . . . (S. : Yes,
you have overlooked one, and then the name of another, my present mother,

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

was not given rightly. Yes, you overlooked one of your children.) [I had
in mind the sister mentioned in a remarkable way later (p. 460).] Have
I ? Have I ? Well I will think about it and see whether I have forgotten
them. I know T never forget anything, but when I can tell it all to you is
a different matter. Did you say anything about mother, James ? (S. :
Tes, you did not give rightly the name of my mother on earth now.) But
the one with me? (S. : Yes.) I was speaking about . . . I thought
I intended to bring her and keep her clear. (S. : Yes, that was right. I
remember my mother on your side, but there is one on this side, you
know) " (p. 441). This was May 31st.

The source of the confusion here is perfectly evident. I ought to
have said stepmother, as was finally done later (p. 483), but she was
always spoken of as "mother," and I thought that the addition
" on this side " would make this clear. But evidently my conception
of the situation was not clear to my father, as his answer showed that
he had my own mother in mind, who was with him at a previous
sitting (p. 432).

The sitting of June 7th was almost wholly occupied with the
attempt to get my stepmother's name. I had resolved, after talking
the matter over with Dr. Hodgson on the way to the sitting, to start
the subject, and the opportunity offered itself near the outset. " (Who
made that cap you referred to so often 1) Mother. (S. : Well, which
mother ? The one on your side or on this side ? Which mother, the
one on your side or the one on my side ?) on my side " (p. 478).
Understanding this last statement to be an answer to my question,
and not being sure what it meant, I said : " Do you mean in the
earthly life or in the spirit life 1 " The answer came: "Oh, I see
what you mean. Your mother, James, is with me, but Hettie's mother
is in the body" (p. 478).

This last answer was correct in every detail, and satisfied me that
the name "Nannie," so often given where I had thought my step-
mother was really meant, was probably a mistake for Maggie, especially
as "Nannie" had been given in connection with the cap and other
incidents applicable only to my stepmother (p. 406). I then started
the next question with a double object, namely, to get incidents that
I did not know, but which were connected with her, and that might
elicit her name by accident. Father had taken a trip West with her
before moving West himself, and the incidents of that trip were
unknown to me.

(S. : Yes, that is right. Do you remember any trip with her out West T)
Certainly, I told you about it before some time ago, did you not understand
it ? (S. : No, I was not quite sure what you meant. When you can I
would be glad to have you tell some things about that trip, but don't
hurry.) Yes, but it was she who made my cap and you had better ask
her about it. Sarah. SARAH." Dr. Hodgson was about to speak

xu.J Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 71

when father went on, ending in confusion. 44 Let me see. What is it I
wish to say. Ellen. Help me, Oh help me to [R.H. puts leather spectacle
case and brown knife on table next to hand. Hand moves back the knife
and retains the spectacle case.] recall what I so longed to say. My own
mother Nannie. I . . . wait I will go for a moment. Wait for me,
James." I said I would wait and G.P. appeared, asking Dr. Hodgson if he
had been sent for. Father proceeded : 44 1 think, James, you mean when
we met with the accident, do you not ? (S. : No, not the accident. You
took a trip with Hettie's mother just before you went out West. It was
that to which I referred.) Well I am sure I have told you of this before.
Think it over and you will recall it. I am not sure I mentioned her, but
I bad it on my mind when I referred to the trip I took just before going out
West, do you not recall it ? " (p. 479).

The fact is that I was in as much confusion as my father, as I
had not recognised the trip to which he had referred before (p. 421),
because it was connected with the Cooper incident, which had appeared
as nonsense to me until I verified it from my stepmother after the sittings
were over. Hence I was thinking of the trip that he had mentioned in
my first series of sittings, which was taken with my own mother and
aunt Sarah in 1861. The expression, 44 my own mother Nannie," is
a very significant one, especially as a little later (p. 481) the same
references come out still clearer. His own mother's name was Mar-
garet, the same as that of my stepmother, which I wanted. Nannie
was the name of his sister, and was used in connections where Maggie,
my stepmother's name, should have been given. Ellen has no special
significance in this connection.

At this point Dr. Hodgson, who did not know that I was quite
satisfied with results, since he did not understand the facts as I did,
called G. P. and explained the situation, and asked for my stepmother's
real name. I explained to G. P. (p. 480) the mental situation of
myself in regard to the two trips and what was wanted. G. P. said :
44 1 see. Well, I will assist him ; do not hurry." - Then followed an
interesting colloquy begun by father, after G. P. had explained to him
the source of my confusion in not knowing which trip he referred to
before, whether it was the one with me or the one with my stepmother.
He said : 44 Yes, this is . . . the one he referred to was the one
with yourself . . . yes which interrupted his thought somewhat."
Though this is a correct acknowledgment of the case and interesting
as explaining the interruption, it contains much confusion still. It seems
in the first part to imply that the trip he took with my stepmother
involved my presence with them, when this was not the fact, except
that they visited me in Chicago on their way home (p. 440). The
latter part seems to indicate only that my allusion to the trip was the
source of the confusion. But in what follows there is a clear
attempt to straighten the matter out. After some altercation with

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Rector, who had advised him to wait, but who finally gave way, father
began : —

"It was Aunt Nannie (R.H. : ' About Nannie ') about Aunt Nannie. I
thought it all over about the cap when I spoke of her. I say I . . . " (S. :
The cap was not made by aunt Nannie. Tou told me rightly a moment
ago.) You are not understanding me, James, let me explain. I thought
of H. . . . H A R . . . H . . . no go on. I thought of
my mother and aunt my sister both at the same time and I wanted to say
that both of their names came into my mind as you spoke of Mary here,
and I got a little confused about it. I am all right now. I wanted to say
something about our visit to her also." Dr. Hodgson was about to interfere
when I remarked that I understood the matter, and the communications
went on. "And between the visit to the boys and aunt Nannie I got
confused a little. (S. : Yes, I understand perfectly.) Well we saw George.
We saw George and Will. Now what did I ... oh yes, I then arranged
to go out there to live. I . . ." [Pause]. At this father disappeared
(p. 481).

The answer to my correction of his apparent allegation that
aunt Nannie had made the cap is a perfect piece of interpretation
of my actual misinterpretation of his meaning. My statement was
calculated to produce worse confusion and I should have remained
quiet; but fortunately he saw, as he states, my misunderstanding
of his meaning, and quickly explains that he had not intended
to connect the cap with aunt Nannie, though the previous sentence,,
perhaps incomplete, is capable of that interpretation. Possibly
the "HAR" is the result of an attempt to say Margaret, and
only the syllable "Mar" comes as "Har." The next sentence
gives the same explanation of his confusion that I have previously
mentioned (p. 481), and indicates very clearly my correct interpreta-
tion of the former. There he had said, "my own mother Nannie,"
which would imply that his mother's name was Nannie to any outside
reader ; but I knew the facts well enough to discover that the unity
was in the interpretation that I gave, and it is confirmed by the
recognition of the distinction here between his mother's and sister's
names. Recognising that his own mother's name was the same as the
one that I had asked for and perhaps wondering why he had succeeded
only in sending that of his sister, he explains that he had thought of
both of them at once, as I spoke of " Mary here." Now I had not
spoken of any " Mary " by name, and I could never make out until
this writing what this " Mary " could mean. In the request to have
my stepmother mentioned (p. 441), I had referred to my own mother-
in the phrase "my mother on your side," without giving the name.
Now in the sitting of May 30th (p. 432) my own mother's name came
out as Mary Ann Hyslop instead of Martha Ann Hyslop. Most
probably, therefore, the name Mary in the present allusions o£

Digitized by Google

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 73

June 7th is the same mistake as on May 30th, and so is intended for
my mother. Consequently, with the allusion to his mother whose name,
Margaret, was the same as my stepmother's, and to his sister, whose
name, Nannie, was the same as that which was mistaken for that of my
stepmother (pp. 69, 343), and with the reference to my mention of my
own mother before, we have a clear indication of what was in my father's
mind and intentions. Who was meant by the message becomes clearer
still in the statement about seeing my two brothers George and Will and
then arranging to go out West. For he did see both these brothers after
the return from that Western trip and then made his plans to move.
Though he has not yet given the name, the incidents make it impossible
for me to mistake who is meant.

My sister Annie took father's place for a few moments, and on his
return he resumed the attempt to name my stepmother and said : —

" I am here once more and I am thinking about the trip I took with
HAT ... [Hand dissents.] H A R ... No. [S. shakes his head
negatively.] I want to speak of other things. Will you try and tell me
exactly what you want " (p. 482). Then began the most interesting"part
of the whole drama. Dr. Hodgson explained our understanding of the
situation as some confusion still about my stepmother, but Rector indicated
very emphatically that it had " nothing to do with mothers of any sort, but
with tripe," and asks us not to worry him but to refer to something else.
Dr. Hodgson then explained that the name of my stepmother had never
been given correctly, saying, "mother in the body," however, until I
suggested " stepmother." Rector to my astonishment at once asked : "Has
it been asked for ? " Dr. Hodgson's reply was : "The stepmother has been
referred to in various ways ; for example, as Hettie's mother. She has also
been called Nannie, but her name is not Nannie." "Well" [continued Rector]
" there would certainly be a mistake in that because they all know better
here than that, because Nannie in the body only acted as a mother to
them after the mother of these children here came here aud that must be
why, if they referred to her as mother Nannie " (p. 483).

Now this was a perfectly correct statement on the part of Rector,
but Dr. Hodgson, not understanding the facts as I did, replied, " No,
Rector," and Rector in despair gave the game up, and saying, " I
cannot understand it," yielded his place to G. P. It was too late for
me to correct Dr. Hodgson's statement. But he went on to explain
the situation to G. P., saying what the mistake had been, and G. P.
replied sharply, " Well, why do you not come out and say, give me my
stepmother's name, and not confuse him about anything except what
you really want] (R. H. : I think that it has been asked for directly,
but cannot be sure.) (S. : Yes.) Has it, very well, if she has a name
you shall have it G. P. understand ?" (p. 483). Dr. Hodgson ex-
plained that there seemed to be some peculiar difficulty about he"
name, G. P. replied, " I do not think so, H., but I do think he wou

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

refer to it in his own way if let alone. I know how you confused me, |
by Jove, and I don't want any more of it. I am going to help him, j
and he is going to tell all he knows from A to Z. No doubt about it, *
H. No one could be more desirous of doing so than he is. Is that *
clear to you 1 Well, when he gets ready out it will come, and there is J
no use wondering about it. I see him now, and he is anxious to say J
something" (p. 484).

G. P.'s blunt, sharp answer to Dr. Hodgson's explanation is beyond
all praise for its appreciation of the situation as he understood it, and
his way of advising us how to simplify the problem would be accepted
by every reader as a most rational rebuke for our confusion and mixing
up of demands ; but it was based upon an entire misunderstanding of
the fact that we had asked for the name of my stepmother, and he
seems not to have known that the question of trips entered into it, as
Rector did. It is true, nevertheless, that, had it not been for our
habit of letting the communicator take his own way we should, in all
probability, have simplified the request, as G. P. put it in his conception
of the situation.

Before my father's return my uncle asked me an absurd question
and disappeared, and then my father appeared and went on to our
conversations about this subject before he died (p. 484). Finally at
the close of the sitting G. P. suddenly appeared and wrote : —

I will speak for a moment and say I do not see any reason for anxiety
about Margaret. (R. H. : Who says this ?) George. He said, I suppose
I might just as well tell you first as last and have done with it, or James
may think I do not really know. Go tell him this for me. You see I got
it out of him for you, H., but you no need to get nervous about it, old chap
(p. 486).

Margaret of course, was the correct name, and if it could be finally
gotten so easily by telepathy, why all this fuss ] The character and
manner of G. P., with his intelligent appreciation of the whole situa-
tion, make one of the most interesting features of the case, and display
every evidence of independent intelligence.

This episode regarding my stepmother's name began in the sitting
of May 31st, near the close, and ended on June 8th. I return now to
that of May 31st.

After father's allusion to my mother (p. 441), he was followed pos-
sibly by an attempt of my Uncle Carruthers, if the letters " E . .
E . . El . ."are any indication of it (Cf. pp. 310, 314, where
a similar beginning ended with the completion of the name Eliza). But
my uncle failed, and then came a long communication from my cousin
Robert McClellan. When my father returned he apparently referred
to the Lucy just mentioned before at the close of my cousin's effort,
and accompanied the reference with a group of names quite pertinent

Digitized by Google

Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.

to the McClellan family (See Note, p. 433). Some confusion foUowed,
and, after an automatism regarding his often hearing my sister Hettie
playing, meaning the organ, perhaps, which she used to play, he pro-
ceeded to " speak of the foot which got injured in the accident," the
incident being applicable to my " uncle Charles," as it was the cause of
his death, but the name was not mentioned. He ran off into a dazed
condition and started possibly by the letter F to say Frank, but
said "it was Will's, " and added, "He got it injured and so did I.
Did you know he was on it 1 " (p. 444). My father did injure his leg
(c/. p. 430), but my brother Will did not, as I had to ascertain later.
My brother Frank injured his leg by a fall, and was threatened with
locomotor ataxy. The confusion is apparent, and thinking that it
might be true without my knowledge, I said I would ask about it, and
the communications went on : —

The boys were so unlike you. I do not think you often asked anything
of them, you never used to do so. (S. : That's right.) You remember
what she used to say, if they were like James I would not have anything to
think about, but . . . how is Helen. I am really too weak to think
more for you, James (p. 444)

This is a very pertinent reference to my brothers, as it reflects
father's exact opinions. I seldom asked him about them, as I corre-
sponded with them, and I also seldom or never asked any favours of
them. What is attributed to " she " in this case is exactly true of my
stepmother, as she states it over her own signature (p. 512). The
" Helen " is meaningless unless it is an attempt at Henrietta or Hettie
again. The sitting came to a close after some communications from my
two uncles, before father had an opportunity to return.

At the sitting of June 1st, as soon as it was opened, father began to
answer an earlier question to tell me where he had sent me to college.
" I intended to refer to uncle John, but I was somewhat dazed, James.
Do you understand me ? " I said that I understood, and he stated
that he had referred to this for clearing matters up, and added, " And
there is another thing to which I would refer, and that is the univer-
sity. It was there, James, that I had you go, and the others I will
refer to soon." Now, assuming that this " uncle John " refers to the
John McClellan whom I know, the statement about sending me there
to the university is perfectly true and pertinent. But this John
McClellan was neither mine nor my father's uncle. He was my
cousin's uncle, and, according to my uncle James McClellan's later
statement (p. 472), this John referred to by my father was my uncle's
father, and would be no relative of my father or myself. Besides,
though it is correct that father sent me to the university here indi-
cated, it was not the college that I had in mind when asking nv
question, and it was not the college connected with the answer to r

J. H. Hy8lop,PLD.

[part

question about how he felt when he started me away from home
(p. 401). Also the institution to which my original question related
was not called a university ; the institution to which my father referred
in connection with John McClellan was called a university.

The next passage has some remarkable features in it, and as an
explanation of his difficulties, it is accompanied by a reference to his
previous intention to mention " the Mclellen family one by one and
to keep all of their names quite clear," and he then added : —

44 Do you remember our old home in the little town of C. and where I
with aunt Nannie lived after your mother left us and we brought you up.'*
Another statement followed, evidently explaining to Rector that he was not
confused, and asserting "the names of your mother's family are all known
tome." He continued : 14 1 intended to clear up about James and John
Mclellen before I left." [See previous sitting, p. 445.] " Speak, James, if
you . . . (S. : Yes, father, I hear clearly and remember the old home
and aunt Nannie bringing us up.) And the special care I had with one of
the boys. It is all right in my mind now. I only refer to it that you may
know it is I, your father, and no one else who is speaking, and . . .
(S. : Yes.) I also wanted Clarke for a mere recollection, not because I
had any special interest otherwise. (S. : Yes, I know, and— did he
have anything to do with your sister ?) Oh yes, only by marriage. (S. :
Yes, that is right, and is he on this side or not ?) Yes he is, and has been
for some time. (R. H. : That's not clear.) I often see him. (S. : Yea, do
you mean that he is on your side ?) He is here. (S. : Yes, what brought
him there, to your side ?) Why do you not remember of his coming here
suddenly, James? (S. : Yes.) It was pneumonia. (S. : Yes, I remember
his sudden coming, but I wanted to see if something said about him before
was what you meant.) What it was, due to it, and if I mistake not you
remember it very well. (S. : Yes, I remember it, but do not worry about it
now. It will come again. You can go on.) I only was disturbed because
of the accident that I could not make clear, and Charles interrupted me
somewhat because be had a fever > and yet we are not suffering with anything,
don't think that, James, will you. (S. : No, I shall not. It is all right.)"
A confused reference was then made to my aunt, and in a moment his place
was taken by my sister Annie (pp. 449-450).

The incidents about my aunt helping bring us up after the death
of my mother are all true. I had mentioned her name and my memory
of her care for us when we were young in my letter read to the
hand on February 22nd (p. 400). The time and place relations in the
statement are exactly correct, except that there is an error in the
letter for the town indicated. It should have been X. (for Xenia).
My aunt did not remain as long with us as the language here might
imply. She remained with us three years. The reference to the special
care, with the italics, has a very definite pertinence for all the
members of the family who know the facts, and the story cannot
be told here, as it is too personal. The name Clarke is not correct,

xu] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 77

though it is the same as has usually been given for the uncle
meant, and the answer, that he was related by marriage only,
states the case rightly, as no indication in the name here or in the
question I put occurs to suggest this answer. That he is on "that
side " is also correct, also the time relation in our parlance, this being
seven months previous to these sittings. He also died suddenly, but it
was not from pneumonia. It was by an accident on a railway. This
is apparently indicated in the allusion here to an accident. But it
will be interesting to note in this confusion that the uncle, James
McClellan, who had been mentioned a few minutes before, had died
from pneumonia, and the allusion to Charles, my brother, saying that he
" had a fever " was also correct, he having died of scarlet fever. My
notes deal with this confusion at length (p. 513). It is also interesting
to see how much truth lies in the background of the confusion, especi-
ally when we remember that the name of my brother has often appeared
as that of my uncle. The confusion consequently seems to show
indications that the communicator was conscious of it, or uncertain
whether I had gotten his message rightly.

After my sister's long communication, father returned and referred
to certain habits of my brother. " Do you remember where George
used to go, and it did not please me very well. Tou see the hours I
spent over him and with him, the advice I gave him, and very little
good at times. I remember Frank, and I also recall the time he caught
the fish. Do you remember that Sunday 1" I asked if he meant Frank,
and the reply came : " Yes ; I refer to him as he knew about it and
the trouble it gave me." After some interlocution regarding my going
home and the communicator's desire that I ask Frank about it, he
continued, " And there was a place he used to go evenings, and both
his aunt and myself did our best to keep him out of temptation." I
repeated my query to know if Frank was meant, and the reply was,
"Yes, I do mean Frank " (p. 454).

My father did deprecate the social habits of my brother George,
though his reason for it did not reflect on this brother. The fishing
incident I knew nothing about, but inquiry developed that the only
fishing experience that gave Frank any trouble with father was on a
Saturday and not on Sunday, and that the escapade also involved my
brother Robert. The same inquiry also showed that neither father nor
aunt ever complained of Frank's social habits. Now it was the social
life of my brother Robert that should be deprecated in the messages
here, while those of my brother George were never rebuked by my
father for moral reasons. In fact, the whole passage is definitely
applicable to my brother Robert, and not to the others, except that
Frank was connected with the trouble about fishing, and that father
did object to George's going to a certain place. The mistake here is

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyalop, PhD.

[part

somewhat like that of the guitar (p. 461). Consequently there would j
be absolutely no clue to any possible truth in these messages, except for
the incident in which this brother Robert was involved with Prank,
namely, the fishing. My notes make this incident clear (p. 516).

Following the above and in the same sentence came : 44 But do you
remember anything about War ? (S. : Yes, I do. Go on.) and the
mental anxiety I passed through at that time ? (S. : Yes, I remember f
it very well indeed.) and my leg 1 I am getting tired, James. Will rest I
a moment and return " (p. 454). Father did pass through a very anxious j
time during the Civil War, as he was much interested in the abolition '
of slavery. He would probably have volunteered but for the injury to I
his back and leg which had incapacitated him for the duties of a .
soldier. *

My brother Charles followed with some communications, and when
father returned he made a number of statements of minor importance,
and the sitting closed with a reproduction of what might close a letter
from him. 44 1 must leave you soon, they say, so accept my little helps
and remember me as your * * [undec.] father, R. H. Hyslop.?>
There was no intermediate H in his name, which was simply Robert
Hyslop. It is not impossible that the surname is an expansion of the
initial 44 H " (p. 456).

The first communicator in the next sitting, that of June 5th, was
my mother. The only evidential incident in her communication was
the question whether I had any more headaches ; I often suffered with
them when she was living and she gave me soda for them. After
fourteen or thereabouts I had no trouble with them. My father
followed with some short unevidential messages, though alluding to
past communications and difficulties in sending them (p. 458). His
place was then taken by my 44 uncle Clarke," who gave the clearest set
of messages he had given since the sitting of December 24th.
The most striking feature of it was the coming on of confusion just as
he mentioned the name of my sister Lida, and my father's taking up
the thread at once in a relative clause, saying : 44 which is the one I
failed to mention . . . and I had to come to straighten out uncle
Clarke's mind, James " (p. 460). This was correct. Lida was the one I
had in mind a previous sitting (p. 441) when I said that one beside
my stepmother had not been mentioned. Alluding to my sister LddcL*
still, my father went on with the communications : —

I wanted to speak of her myself, James (S. : Yes, that is right) and I
wanted to hear her sing. Do you hear me clearly ? (S. : Yes.) I know you
will remember the organ (S. : I remember it.), and I was just thinking of
our Sunday evenings at home. (S. : Yes.) Yes, although time has changed
those days they are still lingering in my memory (S. : Yes, I remember
them. Please go on.), and I remember our little family circle very well.

Digitized by

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 79

You see I go back some time ago for the purpose of recalling incidents which
took place when you were one of them. I am not dreaming, my son, but I
am quite clear and near. I had no idea at first what you really wished of
me, then it all came to me when you said : [hand indicates R. H.] Well, how
would you have James know it was you ? [Hand moves towards B. H.]
(R. H. : Yes, I said that.) Yes, you said that. I remember the organ and
our singing the . . . Oh, what was that hymn, James, we used to sing
so often ? (Keep calm. It will come all right.) N . . . Well, I will
think of it presently and . . . is it all clear to you, or are you con-
fused ?" (p. 460).

We did have an organ, and father wanted my sister Lida to learn
to play and sing with it. The close proximity of the allusion to
" Sunday evenings at home " to that about the organ seems to imply
the habit of spending those evenings about the organ. But this was
not the fact. It was positively forbidden, as father was opposed to all
such music on' Sundays, and also to its use in any form of worship.
The Sunday evenings were spent in a far more prosaic manner, though in
an appropriate religious way. All the singing about the organ was done
on week days. The statement that the events here mentioned belonged
to the time when I was a member of the family circle was exactly correct.
The reason specified for his giving these incidents in connection with
the allusion to Dr. Hodgson's explanation of what I wanted in the
proof of identity is an interesting bit of intelligence, as this explanation
was made on February 7th previous (p. 374), and father was not before
sufficiently acquainted with either this problem or scientific questions
to appreciate the matter without direction. The resumption of the
organ and hymn singing contains the implication that this special hymn
was accompanied by the use of the organ, but this was never done
with the "hymn " that I would expect him to speak of here. In fact,
"psalm " is the word that I ought to have gotten. There was a
special psalm that was frequently sung at family worship. But as the
same mistake in the use of " Sunday " is made as before (cf p. 432),
we can understand on the supposition of an intermediary, G. P.,
how the terms would not be father's. G. P. stated on June 6th,
the next sitting (p. 468), that he was present at this sitting for a few
moments at least. But the association of the organ and the singing
of this " hymn " could be accounted for only on the supposition that
he had changed his views on the matter of instrumental music
(cf., allusion to hymn, p. 389), and was too confused to state what he
had in mind. It is possible that we children sang some of Moody's
and Sankey's hymns with an organ accompaniment on week-days, but
as no one attempted to play the organ but myself, and I only chords,
it is not a fact that makes the incident here any clearer.

The next incident is one of very considerable interest. I shall gir
it in full. It follows the one just given and without interrupts

J. H. Hyalop, PLD.

[PABT

It is most interesting also to remark that it concerns a musical j
instrument, probably suggested by the reference to the organ, and 1
belongs to the same period of the " family circle " alluded to above,

Tes. Oh . . . what has Will done with the flute ... not
flute, I ... oh dear I know so well what I mean . . . fid . . .
fiddle . . . fiddle. (S. : I do not know, but I think you are
thinking of another brother and another musical instrument.) Yes, I think
I am thinking of George (S. : That is right.) and his C . . . Vial
. . . it is my fault . . . [RE puts knife on table.] I am thinking
of George and his . . . the instrument he used to play . . . but
the name has gone. [Hand sways in the air and moves fingers suggesting
playing a guitar. J. H. H.] (S. to R. H. : Look at that hand. Do not
bother about the name now. I know exactly what you mean.) Yes, all
right. After I go out I will return and recall it. I feel I must go for a
moment (p. 461).

This is sufficiently explained by the simple fact that my brother
George had a guitar on which he learned to play, and father
had known nothing about it for seventeen years before his death.
The dramatic play of imitating the use of the instrument, together
with the confusion of names for it, was exceedingly interesting, and is
one of those complex incidents which are difficult of explication by
telepathy.

A long communication from my brother Charles followed, and the
sitting came to a close.

In the next sitting, June 6th, after the usual preliminaries, G. P.
spoke a few words with Dr. Hodgson, saying that he had helped " a
man by the name of Charles " the last time, but did not have time to
say " How de do, H." He alluded to his intention to aid an elderly
gentleman, and my father appeared ready to communicate, when I
asked for the communication of incidents that occurred before I was
born, and which my two aunts would know. The matter was further
explained to Rector and G. P., who made it clear to my father, to
whom I had used the expression that this plan would " shut out the
thought theory," to which he had alluded in the Swedenborg incident
(p. 438). He expressed his understanding of my object, and left to
" think it over." His place was taken for a few minutes by my cousin,
Robert McClellan.

When father returned, he at once said : — " Will you kindly ask Aunt
Eliza if she remembers a young man named Baker, and if she recall
going to a prayer meeting one evening with him, and if she remembers
who teased her about him, and ask them both if they remember Jerry.
(R. H. : Jerry 1 ) Yea. (S. to R. H. : That's right.) Perhaps
you may know this. If you do, say so, James, and I will think of
something else which you do not know " (p. 469). Interested in the

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 81

mention of this name, I asked for its completion, when I was told, —
evidently by Rector, as the interjection is his, — " Ah, but it is no use
if you know it. . . . " — a fine rebuke for my own disregard of the
demand that I had made, as I did know of this person having been in
the family. Father then continued and said : " But ask her," referring
evidently to the same aunt as before, " if she remembers who put the
shoes in her bed and a sock on the post. No one on earth can know
this, as mother is here and she and the Rogers girl only will testify to
it. [Excitement in hand.] I have something better. Ask her if
she recalls the evening when we broke the wheel to our wagon . . .
and who tried to cover it up, so it would not leak out so to speak. I
remember it as if it happened yesterday, and she will remember it too.
I cannot tell you any more just now, but I will think over what is on
my mind about our school days and of my trying to preach to the boys
in the bam and more about it. Be sure and ask about Baker, Jerry
and the broken wheel." He then left and was followed by my uncle
James McClellan (p. 470).

Neither of my two aunts could remember anything of these incidents,
except the pertinence of the reference to Jerry and that father did
tease his sister Eliza about walking home from a prayer meeting,
though the name Baker is not right. This Jerry was an orphan
boy taken into the family when I was a very young child and I have
no personal recollection of him, as he left the family before I was old
enough to remember him. But I have heard father and my two aunts
mention him often, as there were special reasons in his innocent
stupidity for remembering him. It is also natural that my two aunts
should not recall the other incidents here mentioned, as one of them is
seven and the other thirteen years younger than father, the latter,
Eliza, being the one that figures in all but one of the above incidents.

When father returned at the close of my uncle's communications he
alluded to a box of minerals that he said he had when a boy. After some
brief allusions to a box of books (p. 473) he gave the long and remark-
able incidents about our conversation on spirit communication alluded
to earlier (p. 474), and as the sitting was coming to an end, referred
to the difficulties of expressing himself, with the remark that he hoped
his thought in fragments would at least comfort me a little, apparently
accepting the work as a matter of personal interest and consolation to
me. I saw this and expressed the hope that it would help me in the
great cause for the world, and the pertinent reply came : " Yes, and
humanity at large, I trust." He then bade me good-bye, saying:
" Good-bye, Robert Hyslop, your old father " (p. 475).

I could not verify the statement about the " box of minerals," so
called, but I found that he was once interested in Indian relics, and
knew myself that he once had a small collection of Indian stone relic

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hydop9 PLD.

[part

The sitting for J une 8th was opened by some advice and prescrip-
tions from the trance personalities in behalf of both my physical and
spiritual welfare, in which there are evident traces of a serious purpose,
however we interpretthem(p. 488). When father appeared, he first referred
to his having made the acquaintance of Dr. Hodgson's father, and
mentioned their agreement and differences in belief when living ((J/1 p.
389). He then said that he had learned from "them," the trance
personalities, that I was going away, and that he wanted Dr. Hodgson
to take his messages sometimes. He then asked if I was going home
soon, and I replied in the affirmative. He promised to be there and to
watch for anything we said, and report it to Dr. Hodgson. Nothing
came of this. He repeated some questions about incidents that he had
told me, and expressing his satisfaction with my reply and getting
these things off his mind, asked, " Do you remember that Eliza's name
was really Elizabeth % She was named Elizabeth as a child, and as
time went on we began to call her Eliza " (p. 491).

Aunt Nannie denied that there was any truth in this. Aunt Eliza
herself said that she was called Lizzie when a child, and was afterward
called Eliza, by which latter name I had always known her.

Shortly afterwards father asked me to talk to him as I used to do,
and as I had kept him all these sittings telling his own story, I at once
took up the request, and there began as clear a conversation, with
pertinent answers and incidents, as ever came through 'a telephone.

I began the conversation with the statement: "I bought the
house in which you lived out West in order to avoid expenses with the
courts." The reply and conversation came as follows : " Oh, I under-
stand well. I am glad. (S. : George is still on the northern land.) And
will be, I fear " (p. 49 1 ). Both these answers are to the point, and the first
one properly appreciative. My father had wanted for years to have his
northern land sold and my brother to leave that locality. Then
followed a very remarkable incident. I asked : " You will remember
Harper Crawford, I think]" This man was one of father's old
neighbours, and his daughter married my brother. As soon as the
question was put the hand showed considerable excitement, and the
answer began : —

Yes, I do very well. What about him ? I have tried and tried and tried to
spell his name for you, but I could not seem to articulate for their uricTers tend-
ing. (S. : Yes, I understand perfectly. I shall mention another too. Do you
remember Robert Cooper ?) Certainly I do very well indeed, and I have
intended to speak his name for you also, but tell me about the mortgage.
(S. : I have not heard about it, but shall learn this summer.) And then let
me know about HARPERS. (S. : Harper Crawford, you mean.)
[Hand assents.] (S. : All right. I shall do so.) I want to know this one
thing only. Are they doing anything about the chwchl (S. : What
church do you refer to, the church in your old Ohio home ?) [Assent.] (S. : I

xli.] Observations of Cevtain Trance Phenomena. 83

have not heard, bat shall inquire.) They have put in an organ — Organ.
They have pat in an organ, James. (S. : Very well, I shall look this up.
Do you mean the first U. P. Church ?) I cannot seem to get that, James.
[Hand listens again.] (S. : Do you mean the First United Presbyterian
Church T) I cannot get that, can you say it for me slowly ? (8. : Do you
mean the First United Presbyterian Church ?) Say the two last slowly —
got it all but that (S. : U-ni-ted.) Yes. (8.: Pres-by-te-ri-an.) Yes, 1
do. (S. : Very well, I understand. Ton say they have an organ now.) I
say yes. (8. : Very well. I shall be glad to find out about it.) Yes, but I
am telling you. (8. : I understand perfectly, that will be a good test.)
Well, it is so, James (p. 491).

I interrupted the conversation with my father about Harper
Crawford by a reference to Robert Cooper, as the reader will observe.
The allusion to the mortgage has this interest. My cousin Robert
Cooper was burdened with a mortgage on his property at the time of
my father's death, and my cousin Robert McClellan had helped him
oat of embarrassment. My father never knew these facts, but the
death of Robert McClellan a year later and the fact that he is one of
the communicators in this record enables us to suppose that my father
might have obtained his information on the " other side."

I learned also when in the West that an organ had been put into
the Sunday-school and later into the body of the First United
Presbyterian Church to which Harper Crawford belonged, and also
that this Harper Crawford was one of the two or three persons that
left that church on account of this very fact. The other persons who
left this church for the same reason were my uncle Carruthers
(" Clarke " of these communications) and his wife. On the examina-
tion of my father's correspondence, which I had kept, I found that one
letter, about two months before his death, had mentioned the fact that
Mr. Crawford had left this church, but the letter does not say why, so
that I was in all probability ignorant of the organ incident, while
only my subliminal can be said to have known the fact of the man's
leaving the church. But in any case, to start this remarkable incident
belonging to a memory a thousand miles distant, and selected from
the whole universe of living consciousness, just by mentioning a name,
is an achievement in telepathy, if that is the explanation, that makes
one wonder why the name of my stepmother was not gotten more

This incident was immediately followed by another which has less
evidential value, perhaps, to an outsider, but which abounds with
indications of personal knowledge regarding facts commonly known to
both of us in connection with my brother : —

Tell me something more about George. He always did look out for number
one. (S. : Yes, I cannot tell very much about George, because, as you
know, he very seldom writes letters. You understand.) Yes, 1 think I d'

easily.

o 2

J. H. Hyslop* P**D.

[part

perfectly well. (S. : When I come back here again I think I can tell you
many things about him.) Yes, but, James, I know a great deal myself
and did worry as you must know. (S. : Yea, I understand, and you know 1
worried much also.) Yes. Who could know better than I do. Remember
what we talked over when you came out there. (S. : Yes.) Well. I can
say only one thing. Do not worry any more about him or anything else
(p. 492).

The pertinence of this is sufficiently indicated when I say that
every word of it is true. Father had worried a great deal about my
brother George, and I with him. But as my statements suggest the
other facts, there is only the appreciation expressed in the words
italicised, thus marked in the original, and here, as having an interest
for the emotional element in this study of the unity of consciousness.
But the narrative goes on with an interesting return to the mental
state just indicated. I said : —

(S. : No, I will try not to worry.) And about the fence. I am thinking
about the tax I left. (S. : The tax has been paid. I settled that all right.
Nearly all the debts have been cleared off. We owe only aunt Nannie a
little.) Oh, what a relief to my mind. I have thought and thought and
thought what would Frank or George do if they had a hand in it. Do you
remember what you did for me once (S. : I am not sure just now, but if
you will remind me.) in regard to a tax one year? It was what I wrote you
about and you actively helped. (S. : I do not remember it, but you must
not be surprised, because I helped you so often with money, you remember.)
Yes, but about . . . dear James, do you not remember just before I
came here I was not well at the time and I wrote to you about the tax ?
I should never forget it. (S. : I do not exactly recall it, but I think it most
probable, because I know just what the situation was). Well, it will come
back to you I hope as it will live with me forever. What about the fence ?
Do you know what I mean ? (S. : I think I do. I know that we have
repaired the fence.) All right. I intended to have it done before I left,
and I also had this on my mind (p. 493).

This is a most interesting passage. His taxes at the time of his
death were unpaid, because of the total failure of the wheat crop, and
no man that I ever knew hated more to be unable to pay his taxes.
His finances were in a sad condition for the reason mentioned, and he
had concealed this fact absolutely from me. It was his intention to
provide for this and the repair of his farm fences by borrowing. But
there is a wonderful pertinence in the allusion to my two brothers,
Frank was an invalid at the time (c/. p. 441) and unable even to attend
the funeral, with no expectation of ever recovering his health, and was
named as one of the executors of the estate in father's will Frank
then was in no condition to settle up the confusion incident to all
affairs of this sort. I learned also in the West, after the sittings,
what I did not know before, that my brother George had been named

Digitized by

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 85

in the will as one of the executors ; but some years before his death,
for the reasons implied in the appreciative conversation above and
dissatisfaction with this brother's business methods, my father removed
his name from the will, and two or three days before his death sub-
stituted mine for that of my stepmother. The next incident about
another tax I did not remember, but thought it referred to the one that
I paid just after his death. But I found in his letters that it was just
as said here, except that it was not just before his death. It was in
1892. He wrote me about his tax, and instead of asking me to lend
him money for it, requested me to write to my brother Will and
urge him to settle the matter. I do not remember doing so, but my
habit of always meeting such requests would justify my saying that I
probably did so. My brother Will finds on his books that he had paid
the tax after the date of my father's letter.

Soon after I remarked regarding the cane that it was connected
with the campaign, asking if he remembered it, and father replied :
•* Yes, well, and I remember the talk with R. about the president."
This referred to the talk with my cousin Robert McClellan on politics,
as mentioned (p. 494). He then mentioned a chest, which he said he
had bought at an auction years ago, and had kept on an attic floor.
I remarked, using my stepmother's name, Maggie, purposely, that she
would probably know, and he asked if she had not put the stick (cane)
in it. This incident is not exactly true as it is stated, but it is possible
that there are some confused facts in it (p. 495). As the sitting
closed he said, assuming that I was going home as promised him,
"You will give my love to Maggie, Nannie, Eliza. Oh, she is not
there, but take it to her," apparently discovering that one of them, I
cannot tell which, could not be seen at the old home. This would
be true of my stepmother. Mrs. Piper then began to come out of the
trance (p. 496).

The reader who has followed the preceding account through all its
details will, perhaps, be as much impressed by the apparent confusion in
many of the incidents as by the definitely correct statements. But I
have tried to suggest that even the confusions and errors are accom-
panied usually by true statements and have such associations with the
course of thought on the part of the communicator that they continually
indicate groups of memories pertaining to my father's mind. It is,
of course, difficult to estimate the value of all this material. It is, so
to speak, like a fitful and incoherent dream, or series of dreams, or
better still, like the wandering mental condition of a hypnotic patient
with the ordinary inhibitions cut off and yet aware of a definite
purpose to be executed, with interludes of close approximation to tl

Recapitulation.

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

ordinary waking consciousness. One of the questions, therefore, that
we have to determine is, how far the facts are actual manifestations of
a particular personality.

To enable the reader to appreciate my answer to this question more
fully I here summarise briefly the chief types of references made by
my father from which I think it will be evident, without any doubt
whatever, that the communicating intelligence claiming to be my
father is either actually this person (with his mind at times somewhat
confused and labouring under difficulties in expressing himself to me),
or a very extraordinary personation of him that has acquired a know-
ledge of his experience ranging from an early period to his death, and
including not only a proper appreciation of the matters in which he
was most interested, but specific recollections of little possessions and
peculiarities, some of which were entirely unknown to myself.

His own name and mine were correctly given and it was he who
first mentioned Robert and eventually Frank and Hettie as among his
children. I mentioned George myself first (with the intention of
misleading the communicator), and other communicators mentioned the
rest of the children, Margaret, Sarah, Annie, Charles, Will and Lida
before my father did so. The distinction was correctly indicated in all
of these names between the living and the dead. The names Ellen
and Helen occurred in my father's communications without any state-
ments that showed what relevance was intended, though in the case of
Helen the connection suggests that it might be a mistake for Henrietta,
the name of my half-sister. They are not the names of any members
of his immediate family.

The most notable cases of names which were either not obtained at
all or obtained only after much difficulty were Maggie, McClellan,
Henrietta, Martha, and Carruthers. Some effort was made to get the
name Carruthers, but after I was apparently satisfied with Clarke no
further attempts were made. Martha was given as Mary and I did
not press for its correction, as it was obvious, both from the context
and the correctness of the other two parts of the name, who was
meant. McClellan was finally given in practically correct form by
G. P., who gave also Margaret for Maggie and Hettie for Henrietta,
rather curious variations from what were dominant in my mind.

Whatever detailed references my father made to the members of his
family concerning his personal relations with them and his appreciation
of the points in their character were pertinent throughout, except in
the one instance in which the language he used fitted Robert and was
not applicable to Frank to whom it was applied. The most important
instances of these were connected with myself (his opinion of me and
what he used to say to my stepmother) and with George and the worry
about him. Also the special care of one of them in connection with the

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 87

reference to our bringing up in the old home, and the mention of my
sister Lida and the organ. We might also include the reference to his
frankness in expressing his personal feelings towards us when he broke
his usual reservation.

The quiet manner of father's life for twenty years before his death
left him little with which to occupy himself except his personal interest
in the members of his family, the management of his finances which
gave him a great deal of vexation, and the events of the day in politics
and religion. Our correspondence was almost exclusively on the
subject of politics and his financial affairs, never on religion after 1885.
Not a word came from him spontaneously on the subject of politics.
But his allusion to the taxes, the fence and his worry about my brother
George were entirely appropriate to the reasons for the financial concern
he felt in life. His immediate reference to the mortgage when I
'mentioned Robert Cooper was relevant in this connection.

My father's habits of religious thought come out in various places
in the record, as in the consolatory messages to his sisters for their
recent bereavement, the reference to his " Sunday preaching " and
prayers, incidental references to his moral and religious solicitude for
myself, and in the special incidents which apparently indicate a
change of conviction in matters in which he had been extremely con-
servative, as in his conversation with Dr. Hodgson ending with the
significant allusion to the hymn, " Nearer my God to Thee." Closely
Associated with the same were his repeated references to the important
talks with myself on this whole question of psychical research and a
future life, when he reminded me of " the thought theory," hallucina-
tion, my doubts, hypnotism, " manifestations " recognised as apparitions,
my experiment with the young woman in connection with her dream,
and Swedenborg's opinions, all of which formed the subject of those
conversations.

Also certain facts associated with his sickness and all the main
symptoms and incidents accompanying the last hours of his life, though
connected with more than the usual confusion and difficulty, and
the clear allusion to my voice being the last that he heard. Similarly
his remembrances about the medicines which he took were in most
cases less clear than is desirable, as he specified some which he had
only thought of taking (Maltine and Munyon's), and at least one of
which there is no evidence that he had taken it at all (morphine). He
mentioned one of which I was ignorant (the preparation of oil), and
one which I had casually heard of in a letter and had forgotten
(strychnine). His chief success was in specifying correctly in reply to
my question the medicine which I had obtained for him (Hyomei).

The incidents of his early life, given in response to my demand 1
something that occurred before I was born, were very clear. T

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

were the Baker incident, Jerry, the broken wheel, the shoes in the bed,
and the preaching to the boys in the barn. The meaning of the name
Jerry I happened to know, and the incident of walking home with a
young man from prayer meeting is true, except the name Baker, but
the others were unverifiable.

Two automatisms appeared to have some significance. They were
the reference to my sister Hettie's playing, and the phrase, " Give me
my hat," both indicating actual facts in my father's life and know-
ledge.

Another series of references which I may here group together con-
cern my father's personal experiences, 'appearances, and little personal
habits and articles that he possessed. Curiously enough his recollec-
tions about these were the most confused, possibly in some cases
positively erroneous, where my own memory was most clear, and, in
fact, nearly all his most specific references concerned articles the very
existence of which was not known to me at all. That he was a little
elderly gentleman, that he could only whisper, that he had no teeth,
and that he could not sing were correct statements made about him as
Mrs. Piper returned to consciousness. The reference to his books,
pictures, etc., had some pertinence, but they were confused and of no
evidential value, though I was familiar with the circumstances connected
with them. But the references to the trouble with the left eye, the
mark near the ear, the thin coat or dressing-gown he wore mornings,
the black skull cap, the tokens, the stool, the writing pad, the rests, and
the round and square bottles on his desk, the paper-cutter, his diary,
the brown handled knife and the nail paring, and the horse Tom in
connection with George were mentioned with almost precise correctness,
and were all but the tokens, the diary, and the last incident wholly
unknown to me. The visit to George and Will before moving West was
also probably unknown to me. The references to the place in which he
said he kept his tin spectacle case and the paper knife were not true,
and the box of minerals was either a false or an indeterminate incident.

The most important instances of error in my father's communica-
tions, and which will be regarded by many persons as telling against
his identity, although I myself explain them, as the reader understands,
on the assumption of temporary confusion in the act of communicating,
or possibly as due to an error of memory, are as follow : That he sent
me books, a box with two books, that Will had his foot injured appar-
ently on the railroad, that there was trouble with Frank's fishing on
" Sunday " (instead of Saturday), that it was Frank (instead of Robert)
who was exposed to social temptations, that Will played the flute or
fiddle (instead of George and the guitar), Ferdinand (for Anderson),
pneumonia for accident, the misapplication of " cousin " to his nephew,
apparently a visit to Frank, apparently also the intimation that Jennie

Digitized by Google

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 89

was the name of a relative of my step-mother, and the other mistakes
in connection with the names of persons and medicines mentioned
above.

Finally, there are various more or less complex groups of incidents
mentioned by my father which it is difficult to estimate evidentially
from the objective point of view, owing to the error or confusion with
which most of them are complicated, or to the impossibility of verifica-
tion. And yet, on the whole, they appear to strengthen distinctly the
evidence that my father was actually communicating. They are the
trip to the lake, the railroad accident, in which he was concerned, the
canes, the fire and his fright, the Cooper incidents, the church and the
organ in connection with Harper Crawford, the " coach " and the rough
roads and country in Ohio, and the talk with the principal of the
school about George, etc. From my point of view, neither successes
nor failures in recollection by the communicator in regard to individual
facts, like names or isolated references and events, are at all comparable
in evidential value with groups of facts constituting an organic and
complex whole, and associated together, as they would be, in my father's
mind, even if these groups of references are accompanied by some
incoherence, confusion, and error. Even if we supposed that the first
three of the above groups of incidents were to be estimated as entirely
false (two of which I have so classed in the statistical summary for the
sake of avoiding inaccuracy on the other side), and the fourth as
without value one way or the other, there would remain three striking
pages, or chapters, so to speak, of the actual personal experiences in
my father's life which were reproduced with almost absolute correct-
ness. An interesting feature about them is that in two out of three
cases the main points were entirely unknown to myself.

There was nothing in my father's general mental habits, except his
religious affiliations, that would give him any peculiarities of phrase
by which his personality might be easily and distinctly recognisable.
Occasional words and phrases which I have noted in their place are
decidedly not characteristic of him, and may be attributed to the
trance personalities or to G. P., as the use of " Sunday " for Sabbath,
"coach" for carriage, "library" for sitting-room, etc. But such as
were characteristic, though individually frequent perhaps in the use of
other people, may collectively have some interest as possibly evidential
to that extent, The most distinctly recognisable instances, some of
them unknown to me, were : " You had your own ideas," " stick to
this," " well I was not so far wrong after all," " my sincerity of purpose,"
" do not worry, it does not pay," " meeting face to face," and being
" reunited " after death, " what is their loss is our gain," " the least
said the sooner mended," "you are not the strongest man," "remember
it as if it happened yesterday," etc.

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

There will, of course, be various opinions regarding the strictly
evidential value of the communications alleging their sources from my
father, whether taken individually or collectively. But I think that
the reader will no doubt agree, after examining my experiments on the
identification of personality which are given in Appendix V., and
noting the slight evidence necessary for establishing identity, that, if n
ordinary agencies are inadequate to account for the phenomena of \ ,
this record, I am either actually communicating with the independent i
intelligence of my father, or that we have a most extraordinary i
impersonation of him, involving a combination of telepathic powers
and secondary personality with its dramatic play that should as much
try our scepticism as the belief in spirits. 1

The name of my uncle, James Carruthers, who died December 2nd, I
1898, was never obtained directly from him nor in any clearly recog-
nised form. But the name of his wife (my aunt), his relationship to
various persons in the family, some incidents in his life, and an indica-
tion of the accident by which he lost his life, unmistakably suggested \
who was meant by " Uncle Charles " and " Uncle Clarke." Most of
his own attempts at communication were exceedingly confused, though
not worse than many instances of my cousin to be considered next. In
some cases he was apparently unable to complete a sentence, so that if
we had not better data upon which to form a judgment than his mes-
sages, we should have to treat the record more sceptically ; but taken in j
connection with clearer communicators, we can detect an intelligible i
meaning in this instance, while we remark that the confusion in it is j
incompatible with any rational application of the telepathic hypothesis.

The first indication of his presence is in the first sitting on I
December 23rd, 1898, but it is so slight that I should never have sus-
pected it but for the evidence of its connection with later develop-
ments. In this sitting the short communication occurred : " Do you
remember who you used to call Ell . . . el ( ? ) . . . not
distinct. . . . Where is Robertson 1 " (p. 310). I took this as a
confused attempt to get the name of my brother Robert, but later
passages in which it occurs (Cf. pp. 317, 332) rather indicate that it is for
" Robert's son " and an inquiry for me, as he always called father by
the name of Robert. The "Ell ..." and "el . . ." are
broken attempts at the name of his wife, as we shall learn from the
next message (p. 314).

In the second sitting, December 24th, the following occurred : 44 What is
it ? E * * [undec] Elsie El . . . is . . . Elsie. (8. : 1 don't know
that name.) Eliza . . . Eliza (S. : Are you calling Eliza ?) Yes. (S. :

Uncle Charles " ( Carruthers).

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 91

Yes, I understand.) I am, James. (S. : Yes. What do you wish to
say to her 1) Give my love (S. : Yes, I will.) and tell her not to get
discouraged. She will be better soon. Understand ? (8. : Yes, I under-
stand.) I often see her despairing. Where is she now, James ? I will go
there soon. (S. : She is at home. Do you know why she grieves ?)
[Hand points towards invisible.] Yes, because I left her. But I really did
not leave her. I wish I could tell you all I would like, you would not
think 1 had left entirely. I feel much better now. She thought she saw
me in her sleep. I was there. Father, father, father . . . going . . .
going . . . going . . . be back soon. 99 [Dr. Hodgson made a remark
to me explaining the meaning of this last, and the communication began
again.] ' Oh if you only knew how glad I am to see you, you would be glad,
because it will be a help to me to go on in my life and keep her from
feeling any pain. (S. : Yes, tell all you can.) Will you comfort her?
She ought not to be lonely. I am trusting to Him [Imperator] to help me to
speak plainly. (S. : Yes, I will comfort her.) I am glad, so glad. Are
you still here ? I will look and see. I have not been here very long, and
yet I would not return for all I ever owned, music, flowers, walks,
drives, pleasures of all kinds books and everything. I do remember
all here so well. What can I do to help you all to know I live still. (S. :
Tell me all you can of your life here on earth.) Oh I should have much to
do. Where there is light I will always be. Mother, mother, going, going."

Here my father returned to take my uncle's place, and asked me
if T knew " uncle Charles," saying, " He is here." When I said that
I did not know any such uncle, he replied that he was not a real uncle,
and that I must remember what he meant (p. 316). James Carruthers
married my father's sister, and it occurred to me that the "uncle
Charles " was an attempt to give his name. This, with the pertinent
indications of his identity in his own communications, gave me a
a definite clue upon which to depend in the future. He succeeded
this time in the name of his wife Eliza, and it is interesting to note
that it started with nearly the same form whose meaning I did not
suspect in the first sitting (p. 310 and above). The allusion to her
despair had, as a fact, more pertinence than I knew, and than such
a general and expected observation would usually imply, though I
cannot treat it as evidential. (See Note 7, p. 353.) I found also on
inquiry of my aunt that the mention of music, flowers, etc., contained
very pertinent indications of some of his pleasures and habits in life,
about which I knew nothing.

Apparently there is an interpolation by my father during my
uncle's communications. At least the language : " I feel much better
now. She thought she saw me in her sleep. I was there, father,
father," connecting the passage with his disappearance a few minutes
before, and the fact that my aunt Eliza, who is referred to here, did
have a vivid dream in which she saw my father a short time after my
uncle's death (Cf. p. 355), favour this interpretation. Possibly also the

J. H. Hyalop, PkD.

[PAKT

resemblance of the words "mother, mother," etc., in the original to
" brother," as the two are very often written much alike, may suggest
the same conclusion, as my father was my uncle's brother-in-law.

A little later in the same sitting he reappeared, and a remarkable
colloquy took place, upon which I shall comment in the discussion of
the dramatic play of personality, but there was little evidential matter
in it. Following father's departure from the "machine," he said : —

What can I do to help Eliza feel that I am not dead ? (S. : Tell us who
are with you, and that will help Eliza.) Yes, all you shall know each one
in her. . . . You are not Robertson (?) are you? (R. H. : Is that
Robertson ?) You are not George, are you ? (S. : No, I am not George.)
(R. H. : I am not . . .) No, James, I know you very well, but this
other one. . • did you know the boys ... do you know me ?
(p. 317).

The interest in this lies in the query whether Dr. Hodgson was
" Robertson," possibly Rector's mistake for " Robert's son," (Robert
Hy slop's son.) I supposed in the query "you are not George," the
name of my brother, that he was asking this of me and I said I was
not, so that the next remark was very pertinent, while the ignorance
about Dr. Hodgson is a curious reflection upon the telepathic hypothesis
after his many years' acquaintance with Mrs. Piper's trance
personalities.

In the sitting of December 26th (p. 332), apparently my uncle again
communicated. He asked : " Where is Eliza*?" and said, "I remember
her and Robertson." With some further incoherent statements bearing
traces of the temporary loss of the sense of personal identity, he
disappeared as father broke in with the curious remark : " Yes, Hyslop.
I know who I am and Annie too," at least apparently indicating
very clearly a consciousness of the situation and of the disturbed
consciousness of identity in my uncle.

My uncle did not appear again personally in this series of sittings,
nor in those of Dr. Hodgson. But my father, in the sitting of
December 24th, evidently alluded to the event of his death, as well as
that of another uncle, in his message of consolation to his two sisters
for their sorrow, saying : " What is their loss is our gain," a very
characteristic phrase of his in alluding to the incidence of death (p. 3 16).

In the sitting of May 29th my father mentioned this uncle and tried
to give his name, as already quoted, but got no nearer than" Clarke,"
or " Charles," (p. 422). These names were also repeated by him on
May 30th, and "Chester " added (p. 431). On May 31st (p. 442) the
letters " E. E. El . . . ." came and nothing more, until later in the
sitting (p. 445) when Rector wrote : " Clarke is here again." I was
immediately asked : " Do you know me ? Do you remember James % "
This was the Christian name of my uncle, and I asked for the rest,

Digitized by Google

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 93

-and evidently Rector replied : " And it is Clarke. Both are here
. are speaking to you." I asked : " Is it James that speaks to
me ? " and the reply was : " Yes, there were two James, and do you
remember an uncle. (S. : Yes, I remember, and uncle James what ? )
Well, it is he. (S. : Which uncle James ?) H . . . James Mc."
Here I recognised James McClellan by saying, "Yes, that is right"
(p. 445). But the sitting came to an end before anything more could
be made clear. On June 1st father referred to him again as " Clarke,"
and said, in response to my question whether he had anything to do
with his sister, that it was " only by marriage," and that he was on his
side, both of which were correct and suggested his identity (p. 450).

When I asked what brought him to his side, the answer came
"Why do you not remember of his coming here suddenly, James 1
(S. : Yes.) It was pneumonia." The answer "pneumonia" was false
for the uncle Carru there just mentioned, but true for the uncle James
McClellan, spoken of a few minutes earlier (p. 450), and then followed
an allusion to "the accident that I could not make clear" which
nearly answers my question as to the cause of my " uncle Clarke's "
death (p. 450). My uncle Carruthers died suddenly from the effects
of a railroad accident.

On June 5th he appeared personally, announced by Rector in the
sentence, " Here is Clarke." Uncle follows.

44 Give my lore to N. [Hand tightens in excitement, and pencil is
nearly forced out from fingers. R. H. lays his hand gently over it.] Give

. . Give my love to Nan. And let me think a moment. I am a little
anxious to tell you first about yourself. I left so suddenly I had no
time for anything. I am all right now, only my head troubles me
when speaking. Wait for me. And do you remember Rice " (?) (R.H. :
RictT) [Assent] [Then hand dissents violently.] (R.H. : No.) "Yes
. . . Piece (?) Pierce. I say Pierce . . . D." (S. to R.H. :
I don't remember him.) (R.H. : Say so.) (S. : No, I do not remember
him, but you may say something about him and I shall inquire.) "DR.
Pierce. Lidia. Lida... LI... Lid a." (S. : Yes, I
remember lida. What relation is she to me ?) " Annie and she are cousins.
Lida Aunt." (8. : Yes, which Annie is cousin of her ?) " There is a sister
Annie and a cousin Annie and Aunt Lida. She was an aunt to James
Hy slop if I remember rightly and there is a sister in the body by that name,"
and there followed the remarkable relative clause in the person of my
father : 44 Which is the one I failed to mention . . . and I had to come
to straighten out uncle Clark's mind, James. I am your father. I had to
come and help uncle Clarke straighten out his thoughts." (p. 459.)

The whole passage is a remarkable one, and has many features of
identity in it. For reference to "Nan" see p. 536. The name
" Dr. Pierce," first "Rice," is an apparent attempt to give the
name of Dr. J. P. Dice, who was my father's physician, a friend of —

J. H. Byslop, PLD.

[part

the Carruthers family, and who waited on father in my uncle's
house during father's last illness. The letter D is significant for 1
this interpretation. My uncle would know, of course, that I would
recognise this doctor, and it was a good device for identifying himself
in the absence of the ability to get his own name clearly. The name
"Lida" was that of my sister, and she was so called in order to
distinguish her from this aunt Eliza for whom she was also named.
My uncle always called his wife " Liza " in familiar address. Coming 1
in close connection with " Lida " the mistake is a natural one. The
mention of my sister Annie was right, and if my conjecture (p. 536) \
is right, namely, that this " cousin Annie " is Rector's mistake for |
cousin Nannie, the relationship between her and my sister " lida " is
rightly named. It was also correct that this sister " Lida " was the |
one that my father had not yet mentioned, for whom I had asked t
previously without hinting at whom I wanted (p. 460).

In the same sitting a little later, my brother Charles alluded to |
this " Dr. Pierce," and said : " He was a friend of uncle Clarke's, and
he is still over there " (p. 463). Both statements are true of this Dr. |
J. P. Dice, whom I interpret this " Dr. Pierce " to mean. No further
communications came either from my uncle or about him, except in
the sitting of June 7th, when my father again alluded to him (p. 485),
in connection with the incidents of our conversations in February,
1895, regarding this subject of spiritism. Father referred in this com-
munication to an alleged experience of my " uncle Clarke," which I
could not verify, and which was said to be a "notification of his
sudden coming." His death was a very sudden one, from a railway
accident, as already indicated.

The most interesting feature of the communications from my uncle
personally, and concerning him by others, is the difficulty that they
offer to the telepathic hypothesis. They are by no means so clear as
those from my father. But the names, incidents, and relations involved
are just as clear or unclear in my own mind and memory as the facts
about anybody else. There is absolutely no intelligible reason, from
the standpoint of telepathy, why there should be any more confusion
in his case than in that of others, but we have in the actual messages
exactly the personal equation and differences that we ought to expect
on the spiritistic theory in dealing with different communicators.

There is not very much of special significance that apparently came
directly from this uncle. There is much confusion and the most
important name attempted, that of Dr. J. P. Dice, was only given
partially. In fact the statements made about my uncle by my father,
that he was my uncle; that he was related to my father only by
marriage ; that his death was very sudden ; and the attempts to give
his name Carruthers, were perhaps as suggestive of his identity as any

xix] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.

that came directly from this uncle himself. On the other hand, the
name of his wife, Eliza ; the reference to her despair and loneliness,
the special character of which I did not know; the mention of the
" talks, walks, drives, flowers, music and pleasures of all kinds," which
represented actual facts in his life of which I was not aware ; the
statement that he had not been long deceased ; the name and relation-
ship to me of my sister Lida in conjunction with the name of my aunt
Eliza, his wife, form together, in spite of the confusion in his attempts
to communicate, a group of statements which cannot be entirely
ignored.

It will be found that the communications of my cousin bear the
same characteristics of confusion in most cases as those of the uncle just
considered. He died in 1897, about a year after my father, but was
neither mentioned nor admitted as a communicator until my last series
of sittings. In the sitting of May 29th my father evidently alluded
to this cousin when he gave the name " McCollum," saying that " he
came over some time ago " (p. 422), and later " McAllan," when he
spoke of him as " cousin " (p. 423). Early in the sitting for May 30th, my
cousin appeared personally, and began an interesting communication
as follows, opening it with a remark that apparently indicates that he
had been present some time before.

I am still here. I have been wondering if you remembered anything
about me. I am your cousin H. H. McAllen. Dont ... do you not
hear me ? (S. : Yes, I hear you. I shall be glad for you to go on.) I am
with you still you see. Do you remember Wallace . . . and Williams,
the Williams boys, I mean. I am at the moment trying to think what
became of Robert. Speak to me for God's sake and help me to reach . . .
(S. : Yea, I remember Robert, but which Robert is it ?) I think you say
which Rob is it : well Hyslop. (8. : That's right.) I mean Rob Hyslop
of coorae. Which other could I mean ? (S. : Yes, I remember him. He is
in Cincinnati.) Give him my greetings. I am a little dazed for the moment,
but have patience and I will be clear presently (p. 427).

The reference to Wallace and Williams is unintelligible. My
cousin's initials should be "R. H." instead of "H. H." My cousin
was very much interested in my brother Robert Hyslop, for reasons
that are too personal to explain, and which are connected with this
brother's conduct. He gave his name as Robert rightly, and then
refers to him as he was usually called in the family, namely, as Rob.

After an allusion to his being dazed he referred to a foot that was
injured on the railroad, and connected it with my brother Robert
(p. 428). This was false, and I intimated as much. A little later he
connected the same accident with the name " Will," which is the name

Robert Harvey McCleUan.

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

of another brother of mine. This was false again, but I did not
intimate the fact. But at this point G. P. suddenly appeared and said
that Imperator had sent him. I was then asked a question by my
cousin that might imply from the context preceding that the accident
was connected with George, the name of my brother again, though it is
also the name of his own son. But the reference of the accident tc
either of them would be false. It would apply to my " uncle Charles 5
(Carruthera). The narrative continues : —

"James, was it George I have been trying to think . . . when
is . . . and do you remember Peter who was ... or belonged t<
Nanie. (S. : I do not recall Peter now, but I remember some one by tha
name) here. (S : I do not know whether he is there or not. Is he on you
side ?) Yes, we say yes. Iam W. H. Mo Alien [?]. The name does no
sound right to us friend. It is he says Mc .... sounds like Mclellen
G. P. : Yes, I am he." (S. : Yes, I am very glad to hear from you. Wha
relation are you to me?) Your cousin. (S. : That's right.) " After anothe
remark or two my next question was : "Do you remember what I was doin
when you saw me last ? " And the reply was : " Yes, you were writing
teaching, I believe. (S. : Don't you remember a meeting in which I spoke
[Much excitement.] "Oh yes, oh yes. Oh yes. Oh yes. But I could n<
exactly remember just what it was. (R. H. calm) but I could not exact!
remember just what it was. And have you any knowledge of Merritt." E
then disappeared (p. 428).

His name was not quite right, but it finally comes very nearly righl
G. P.'s statement was correct enough for all evidential purposes. He wj
also right in general as to what I was doing when I last saw him, whi<
was at the time of my father's death. He it was that arranged for
meeting which I addressed on the issues of the last presidential campaig
and though the recollection of it was not suggested by my questio
his recognition of it when I mentioned it was very characteristic. I
always expressed himself in precisely this manner and langua
when something was recalled to his memory that he had forgottc
His wife remarked the fact to me spontaneously when she saw t
record. But the name Peter, and its connection with " Nanie " a
its possible connection with George had no meaning to me. In t
sitting for June 1st, however, my sister Annie communicated 1
this cousin as an intermediary and asked : " What is meant
Peter] Was it the dog George had?" I saw by this that 1
George evidently referred to his own son, the older, and wh«
name is George. When West, I inquired first of the younger s«
Jamie, whether his brother George ever had a dog by the name
Peter, and was answered in the negative, and on his express:
curiosity to his mother behind my back as to what I could mean
asking such a question, my cousin overheard his mother seriously i
that it was true. She told me the next day that it was a little Uj

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Plienomena. 97

black dog that George had when he was between two and four. George
himself did not remember it when I asked him some days afterward in
another city, but he did recall another dog that he had when he was
between five and six. Further correspondence with the mother showed
that they were both right, as he had had the two dogs. I knew
nothing of the fact, and my note shows (p. 515) that there is nothing
to make this judgment improbable. My sister can be supposed to
have gotten the information about the dog from my cousin Robert
McClellan. My cousin has a living sister Nannie, but she remembers
nothing of the dog, and the reference to " Nanie " remains unin-
telligible. I could also find no meaning among my connections in the
reference to Merritt.

Later in the same sitting my father (p. 433) alluded to him as
44 Robert cousin, " and as having mentioned my brother Robert, and
foiled my father's desire to do that himself. On May 31st (p. 438)
there was a communication, apparently about a John McClellan whom
I never knew, and it terminated with a communication apparently
from my cousin Robert McClellan, who asked the pertinent question :
**Doyou know where Frank Hyslop is?" as he was interested in my
brother on account of the latter's bad health. Supposing, as I did,
at the outset, that I was communicating with this John McClellan,
a stranger to me, I asked where he knew Frank Hyslop, and got
the correct answer — for my cousin : " Well, of course I know him and
all of my cousins. Why shouldn't I, James." The pertinence of the
names Hathaway and Williams is explained in my notes (see Note 94,
p. 535). All that he said about my brother, namely, that he was going
to be a doctor was false. He was correct in saying that his own wife
was on this side (p. 440). Later he gave a clearer message. He tried
to continue for a moment, but had to be told (p. 442) by Rector
to "go out and come in again with the message." Rector then
said that he had said something about "Lucy," which was in fact
the name of his wife still living (cf. pp. 421, 452). A very complex
passage followed, which I shall unravel in the more elaborate discus-
sion of mistakes and confusion. (Cf pp. 231-235.) He gave the
Christian names and relationships of several persons, though in so
confused a manner that I shall not duplicate the later explanation
of it.

After this my cousin did not appear again personally until the
sitting of June 6th. But in the sitting for June 1st my sister Annie
gave the names "Jennie and Lucy" together, and said that this
Lucy was on this side, which was true (p. 442). I knew nothing
whatsoever of " Jennie," but found by inquiry in the West that she
was the sister of my cousin's wife Lucy. I had never known her. She
is still living. In the sitting for June 5th my brother tried to give

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PABT

a name which was in reality that of this cousin's wife, and came nearly
doing it. The message was : —

But he [father] often speaks of Lucy. (S. : Yes, can you finish thai
name Lucy? LUCIN. . . LUCY. . . who** [undec.] Mothei
mother ... L It is L U C y I am speaking about. L an * * [undec,
L U C y. No I cannot, James. (S. : I know what it is.) I will try agai
to make him hear. LUCy . . . A . . . Annie .... will help me f<
a moment. I do not think it is wise, will return again when I can spea
louder. I am not confused, am I ? (S. : I think not, but what relation wi
she to me ?) Well, I got it all but the Hyslop. (S. : Was she very close
me ?) [Hand shakes slightly to indicate not understanding.] Say that agai
(8. : Was she very close to me when she was living ?) [My question was p
in this form (cf. p. 309) to see if he had in mind my twin sister, Luel
though I felt it was intended for my cousin's wife.] Yes, very, and woi
have remained so, but not a sister, nor a cousin, nor an aunt, James, but
is on my mind, and I would like to tell you all I can about her, but I ar
little weaker just now (p. 464.).

But as Mrs. Piper was coming out of the trance she gave the na
in full. " Tell Hyslop. Lucy . . . Lucy . . . McClelk
(p. 466).

I, of course, knew what the name meant as soon as it was mentio
the first time (p. 421), but I wanted to see it completed, especially
my cousin himself was so confused in his messages. The believe
telepathy may note the interesting mistake of Rector in thinking 1
my brother Charles ought to have said Lucy Hyslop. There was
Lucy Hyslop and I was thinking all the while of Lucy McCle
until Rector said " Hyslop." There was some confusion after
possibly due to my question about my twin sister, as the reply sH
apparently implying that this Lucy is on the "other side," w
is not the fact. The first part of the answer, "Yes, very, and w
have remained so" can apply to my twin sister Luella that I
in mind, but the latter part fits Lucy McClellan, who was neitl
sister nor aunt, and- was a cousin only by marriage. It is poss
that, because of this confusion and Rector's discovery of his mis
a special effort was made to give the name as Mrs. Piper retu
to consciousness, and the effort succeeded. (For similar cas<
success as Mrs. Piper returns to consciousness compare Proceed
Vol. XIIL, pp. 305-6, 310 and 372). At the next sitting,
6th, my cousin appeared near the beginning of it, and gave nn
following message which was unintelligible to me at the time, e
the allusion to Lucy.

" Ts James Hyslop here ; if so, give him my love and say it is as I
have it, and I shall always feel as I did before he went away. I wani
much to say something to him, but how can I ? [Pause.] I want to i
as soon as possible and free my mind. I have much to talk over with

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 99

My name I gave to Mr. Clarke, and told him to say I was here. L U C Y (?)
(S. to R. H. : What's that ?) LUCY. Where is the book of poems ?
Ask him if he knows what I am thinking about ? " His place was then
taken by my father (p. 469).

I found on investigation in the West that my cousin's sister Nannie
had given him, and read to him very frequently during his last illness,
a book entitled, " Morning Thoughts," every chapter of which closed
with a poem, usually of some length. Taken altogether, his communi-
cations are neither clear nor rich in evidential material. Without the
mass of evidence in the messages of my father, these of my cousin
would perhaps not carry much weight alone, though my experiments on
the Identification of Personality (pp. 537-623) show that we are
entitled to give them some value, even independently of the better
results of my father. For we saw in those imitative expeViments how
little evidence is necessary to correct identification of a communicator.
If telepathy be once excluded, therefore, the spiritistic theory could
easily triumph. The evidence for identity may remain the same on the
telepathic hypothesis. Some of the best incidents eliminating acquisi-
tion from my memory are found in the messages pertaining to my
cousin. They are the dog Peter, the connection of Jennie with Lucy,
possibly the book of poems, and more remotely the " aunt Nannie,"
applicable to his sister. Had he been as good as my father, the
record would in all probability have been full of incidents transcend-
ing my mind. As it is, the confusion which he shows illustrates again
the remark made of my uncle's messages, that on the telepathic hypo-
thesis there ought to be no such differences between communicators
when the data of my mind are the same for all, and were plentiful
enough regarding my cousin to have expected, on that theory, many
more and clearer communications.

Somewhat as in the case of my uncle Carruthers, the statements
that came directly from this cousin gain much of their significance
from the information offered by other communicators. Thus he prac-
tically succeeded in telling me he was my cousin McClellan, but
his first name, Robert, was supplied later by my father. Again he
mentioned Lucy, but the name McClellan in connection with it was
given by Mrs. Piper's returning consciousness as the trance was over.
So also it was my sister's inquiry about the dog Peter that gave
significance to his vague expressions on this point. It is worth
noticing that only in the group of associations likely to be immediately
and primarily stimulated by my presence were the facts approximately
clear. These were his name and relationship to myself, the " Hyslop
boys " and my father, calling him " uncle Hyslop," and his particular

Recapitulation.

100

J. H. Hyslop, PkD.

[PAKT

inquiries after my brothers Rob Hyslop and Frank Hyslop. Attempts
to get beyond this apparently resulted only in vague or erroneous
statements, as when he said that my brother Frank or one of my
other brothers intended to be a doctor, and that my brother Robert or
Will had met with an accident on the railway. Although the small
group of facts which I have mentioned indicates clearly enough what
person is concerned as communicator, there is perhaps scarcely anything
characteristic of him except the repeated phrase, " Oh yes, Oh yes."

Statements of my brother Charles.

This brother died, as already remarked, in 1864, when he was but
four and a half years old. I have mentioned above the incidents which
he gave in Jbhe first sitting to indicate his identity, and shall repeat
them briefly. But the chief interest that attaches to them generally
is also the same as that of my sister's, namely, their power to suggest
difficulties in the theory of telepathy. Many of them do not profess
to be personal experiences of his own, but were avowedly those of the
persons for whom he acted as an intermediary. They show inexpugn-
ably, in all ordinary conceptions of the process, an internal contra-
diction in the telepathic hypothesis. It is essentially absurd to say
that telepathy could not get access to my memory or other living
consciousness in terms of association with the person whose identity
they are to prove, but can be effected under another name which is
that of a pertinent person who never knew the facts. It is simply to
say that telepathy can do with one name what it cannot do with
another and the right name.

It will be recalled that in the first sitting my brother gave his
name and relationship to me, and stated that he had had a fever, saying
immediately afterward that it was typhoid, which was false ; that
lie IkliI had a very bad throat, which took him out ; that it was in the
winter and that he remembered seeing it snow (p. 310). He also
refer ml in this sitting to my mother's sister, saying that she was
living before he passed out and that she had died after my mother.
This was true. He said that Mary was the name of my father's sister,
and Elizabeth that of my mother's. The former was correct, the latter
rthould have been Eliza, as I had to ascertain by inquiry. But it was
not the name of the sister referred to as having passed out after my
mother. I did not know that my father's sister was named Mary. I
heard of her only as Amanda. She died before I was born. In the third
-iuing be responded to my question asked in the first that he had had
scarlet fever (p. 330). All these incidents were true with the one
exception mentioned. In the sittings of December 24th and 26th
\here were some brief and non-evidential communications except one
twidrnt from this brother (pp. 313-314, 330).

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 101

On May 31st, when I was present myself and just after my cousin
Robert McClellan had been communicating in the first half of the
sitting, Charles followed with a most interesting set of messages. He
said : —

James, I am your brother Charles and I am well and happy. Give my
love to the new sister Hettie and tell her I will know her some time. Father
is . . . often speaks of her. (8. : Father often speaks of her ?) Yes.
Do you hear ? (S. : Tes I hear.) Well, it was Frank who had the pictures
and father would like you to have them if you are still in the body, James.
Speak to me. (S. : Yes, I shall have the pictures, Charles.) He asked me
to say this for him. His voice troubles him a little when trying to speak.
(S. : Yes, I understand.) But if you could only see his delight when he
hears you, I am sure, my dear brother, you would never doubt that be
still clings to you. It is his one desire to comfort and help you, but he
wants you to go home and rest there (p. 440.)

The chief interest in this passage is the manner in which he
speaks of my sister Hettie. He died in 1864, and she was born in
1874. He alludes to her, therefore, in precisely the proper way, and
the remark that "father often speaks of her" is exactly what he should
May consistently with the statement about her as a "new sister."
Father's pictures, which it is said I should have, were left with Frank
in the sense that he was living with father at the time of his death,
though spending the summer at my brother's. It would have been
truer, however, to have said that he left them with my stepmother.
The hypothetical clause, " if you are still in the body," is very
curious. It seems to imply the existence of conditions intermediate
between the present life and the one claimed for himself (Cf. p. 332).
The last sentence of my brother's message concerning my father's
"desire to comfort and help me" as a subject of common con-
sciousness beyond, was as characteristic of father in life as it is in
these sittings.

The next appearance was on June 1st, toward the close of the
sitting.

What about aunt LUCY? (S. : Aunt Lucy who?) Charles is
speaking this, and he came here quite young. She was related to the other
mother, wasn't she ? (8. : Do you mean the mother on this side ?) Yes, I
do. (S. : Well, can you tell what her other name is?) John can as he
knows her very well. Ask him when he gets here, if that is you James.
(S. : Very well. That is all right ) And what happened to the chimney
after I left? Do you not remember? (3. : Yes, I remember it.) And
wasn't it taken down ? (8. : Yes, I think so.) I heard father talking
about it to mother some time ago ... I mean the chimney, James.
(8. : Yes, I remember it welL) Well, all right, 1 am not worrying about it.
Only I remember how cold it was before I left (p. 455).

The "aunt Lucy" is either meaningless or a mistake for my cousin,
Lucy McClellan, and she is not related to my stepmother at all, as she

102

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[part

is only my cousin by marriage. I can make nothing of the reference to
John, unless it be the John McClellan of previous communicatioiis
(p. 438). He was either the grandfather of Robert McClellan, Lucj
McClellan's husband, or the John McClellan of earlier communica
tions (p. 111).

But the allusion to the chimney is very pertinent. There waj
a tall unseemly chimney on the kitchen, which was built in 1861
It was blown down in a cyclone in 1884, and just such an objec
as my father and mother would pick out for my brother to mentioi
to me. But we can hardly assume that my brother would recollec
it, although my mother might well mention it to him, as it ws
built when he was about a year old, and he was four and a ha
when he died. This assumption that he might remember it is n<
necessary, as he here creates an additional complication for telepatl
by virtually disavowing the fact as one of personal knowledge :
life, and represents it as acquired on the " other side." The incidei
itself is well calculated to suggest family connections at least.

On June 5th, following father's communication about my broth
George's guitar, he began a most interesting set of messages : —

What is it . . . My step-sister ... I am Charles. + [Imperato
sent me to take father's place. Hettie I did not remember (S. : That
right.) as she was my step-sister, half-sister, I mean, but I could not think
it at first. Do you realise, James, how much our leader is helping

. . (S. : I shall be glad to hear you go on.) He said— I mean, fatl
said — you go, Charles, and do the best you can until I can breathe m
freely. Do you remember uncle James Mclellan . . . and Fr?
. . . speak . . . Hyslop ? (S. : Yes, I remember Frank Hya
well.) He is not here yet. He is over there somewhere. Father spoke to
of him a few moments ago. (S. : That is right.) You see father forj
nothing, but he cannot say all that he thinks yet. Who is Dr. Piei
He was a friend of uncle Clarke's, and he is still over there. (S. : Rig
Arid perhaps you will take the trouble to find him at the . . . *
[undec.] . . . Oh, I am getting mixed too. [R, H. puts k
•into hand.] (S. : My brother Charles.) I was ill, wasn't I, very
and when they thought I was getting better I was really coming out.
do not know this, but aunt Nannie will, I know. I am thinking about fatl
war stories. Do you remember them ? And anything about his leg ?
Yes I do.) and the little . . . James, what became of the little
. . . (S. : I do not remember.) Think about the boat. The other
must know what I mean. (S. : Yes, 1 shall ask them about it.) And
about the time after I left that they got turned over. I cannot ask 1
because I know. (S. : 1 shall ask them myself this summer.) And whav
become of Robert? (S. : Robert who?) Robert Hyslop. (S. : Your brx
Robert?) Yes. (S. : He is in Ohio.) Well . . . well . . . is he i

1 The mark of the cross is frequently made to indicate Imperator.

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 103

(S. : Yea, he is well.) Are those his children ? (S. : I do not under-
stand.) No . . . No it was only interruption ... I am think-
ing of my brother. (S. : That is right.) And he has some trouble with his
eye . . . one . . . eyes. Yes, eyes. (S. : Yes, I think that is
right.) Yes, it surely is right, and I am going to see what I can do to help
him. I will do better for you bye and bye. James. Do not get impatient
with me. I was all right, and I tried to do right always. Don't you think
so. (S. : Yes, I do think so.) I want very much to help you to find us all. I
could not stay away. We had one other sister, didn't we, or you did.
(S. : Yes.) I mean you did. (S. : Yes, that is right. Can you tell her
name T) Yes, Lida . . . (S. : Yes.) was her name, (S. : Yes, that is
right.) and father knows more about her than I do, but often tells me
about them, and of another one named like her. Li L i z z

but Eliza . . . . beth . . . Eliza ... I am not not quite sure of
this, James " (p. 462).

Following this came the passage about Lucy which I have quoted
above (p. 101).

This long communication is firll of interesting and evidential points,
though not for the communicator himself, except perhaps in one detail,
that of the reference to his half-sister. The message starts with an evident
word on the "other side," as if trying to be sure what he was to say.
That he could not remember Hettie is apparent from what I have
already said above (p. 101). The correction from step-sister to half-
sister is interesting; as the latter is the correct form. The names of
my brother Frank and uncle James McClellan are correct, and it is also
correct that this brother is still living. He was born three years after
the death of my hrother Charles. Assuming the "Dr. Pierce"
mentioned to be intended for Dr. J. P. Dice, the statement about his
being a friend of " uncle Clarke's " is also true. The allusion to his
own illness and death cannot be verified, as only father and mother
were present when the end came. The reference to father's war
stories and his leg is very pertinent (Cf. p. 454). My brother died just
at the close of the civil war in 1864, and, as said above, father was
prevented from taking part in that strife by an injured spine and leg.
The " ship " incident cannot be verified, and probably refers to a toy,
if we allow ourselves any conjectures in this connection. It might be
supposed to have reference to some accident, " turning over " of a boat,
in connection with my brothers. But there was no stream of water
near us for any enjoyments or accidents of this kind. The name of
my brother Robert was correct, but he was not suffering from sore
eyes. My brother Will was suffering from some difficulty with his eyes
at the time, having gotten poisoned, as supposed, some time previously.
The allusion to children, however, is explained by Rector to be. an
interruption. As ray sister Hettie and brothers Frank and Robert were

Lizzie

L i

no not exactly,

104

J. H. Hyslop, PkD.

[part

mentioned in order, it is possible that during the interruption indicated
my brother Charles passed in thought to my brother Will. The state-
ment about my other sister and the giving of her name as Lida is
correct. She was six and Charles four and a-half years old when he
died, so that father would know more about her than my brother.
The other " named like her " is evidently my aunt Eliza, the name here
being correct, and subject of frequent mention in this record. My
sister Lida (Eliza) was named for this aunt.

The chief value of this communication lies in the fact that it com-
pletely breaks up every principle upon which telepathy can claim a
point de repfre and method for its acquisitions. There is no principle
of association in my memory, or that of any living person, by which
these incidents could be telepathically obtained in the personality of
my brother Charles. The communication is a piece of constructive
intelligence which gets its unity wholly from the standpoint of real
spirits. There is every mark of an independent intelligence in the
telling of the facts, and an intelligence that never knew some of them
personally while living, but has to get them on the " other side " in the
same way that we should in actual life, namely, by conversation of
some kind, as it is actually stated in the messages.

Recapitulation.

The statements coming from this communicator that are apparently
presented a* omseiuun n collections of his own are, as we might expect
fmm a hoy who died thirty-four years previously at the age of four
and a half year*, very tW\ The correct statements are that he was
my brother Charles, that he had died with a very bad throat of a fever
(fir&t wrongly described an typhoid, and afterward rightly as scarlet
fever), that it was winter* and that he remembered seeing it snow,
mow having fallen a* a fact at the time of his illness and death, and
tlmt he died before hi?* mother. Another statement possibly implied
that he had never known me personally, or at least had no remembrance
uf me, yet I was at home with him during his short lifetime (p. 309).

The other statements made by Charles apparently depend on infor-
mation received by hiin on the "other side." Some of them betray an
obscure and imperfect knowledge of relationships and facta, such as
might not improbably arise under the circumstances supposed on the
spiritistic hypothesis ; the reference to aunt Lucy, to Frank and the
pictures, the confusion lie t ween my brothers Robert and Will, are
iMtcnrn i f tli is. Beyond his personal remembrances of his earthly
' some tacts either indicated before or given by him as an inter-
perlmps the only significant fresh statements concerned what
Ao the chimney, and his reference to his new sister Hettie,
her stepsister, and then immediately and more correctly,

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 105

half-sister, and his statement made at my first sitting that my mother
had a sister who was living when he died, and that this sister died

My sister Anna died twelve days after my brother Charles, in 1864,
with scarlet fever, when nearly three years old. She was commonly
called Annie by the members of the family since my mother's death,
and possibly often before that event. Only her name appears in my
sitting of December 23rd, and without the relationship to me. In the
sitting for December 26th (p. 331) my brother Charles was apparently
followed by my sister Annie, who seems also to have acted as inter-
mediary for one or two statements from my mother. I quote the
passage where I suppose that her communications begin. " Mother
[? brother] . . . is .here also. (S. : Mother, is that you 1) Yes, we
are all here. Do you know who Sarah is ? Anne [Anna T\ (S. : Yes,
I know who Annie is.) She wants to see you. (S. : Well, I hope we
can some day.) She says you dream while she lives, and she sends
her love to you."

Sarah, or Sarah Luella, was the name of my twin sister who died
when she was only a few months old, and who was possibly meant by
the " one who is nearer to you than all the rest of us," as mentioned in
the sitting of December 23rd (p. 309). The record continues : —

Where is brother James? (S. : I am brother James.) How you
have changed since I came here. [Of. Proceedings Vol. XIII., p. 324] Do
you remember anything about my hair ? There is something I wish you to
know. Do you, if you are my dear brother, recall anything about my hair ?
(S. : I am not quite certain.) They took a piece of it away. Did you know
this ? (S. : I think you are right.) I know I am. I know it well, James.
And I remember a little picture of ine taken when I was very young. Who
has it now ? I cannot find it and I have thought about it so much. (S. : I
think I remember now. Do you remember Aunt Nannie ?) [Excitement in
hand.] Well, I think I do very well. I was named for her. Has she it ?
(S. : Tea, she has it.) Qive her my love and tell sister Annie tells her . . .
Anna not Anna but Annie . . . And I am your sister. (S. : Yes, I
remember you well.) Do you not have anything to say to me. I came here
just after Charles. (S. : Yes, that is right. I am glad to hear from you.)
I tried years ago to reach you. I tried years ago through father. Did you
know this ? (8. : No, I did not know this.) I did. And if auntie is still
in the body she will remember this. Here comes father (p. 331).

The incident of the lock of hair here implied is correct, though such
incidents are too common to be evidential. The allusion to the picture
is also correct, but liable to the same objection as the lock of hair,
though the statement that it was " taken when I was very young " i*
interesting for its pertinence as well as its truth. She was not name

after my mother.

Statements of my sister Annie ( Anna ).

106

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

for my aunt Nannie. The correction to Anna here is interesting,
though re-corrected, especially as it was indicated previously that my
mother was present, who, — I learned from my aunt Nannie, — always
refused to call her "Annie," as she did not like the Scotch "Annie
Laurie," the full name of my sister being "Anna Laura." My mother
insisted on saying " Anna." The statement that she " came here," —
died, — "just after Charles " is correct. The rest is unverinable. No
experiences such as are implied in the statement of trying to reach me
through father are remembered in the family.

On December 26th my father spoke of my sister Annie (p. 332),
and also on February 16th, in the sitting with Dr. Hodgson (p. 3S£),
but she did not appear again personally until May 29th in my last series.
On that date she took father's place for a few moments and said : —

Annie ... I want to help father to remember everything because I
came here first and long ago. Do you hear me, James ? Do you remember
the large sled .... the large ded? (S. : I am not sure.) Sled Sled.
(S. : Yes, I understand.) Do you know the one I mean. I remember you
and the Allen boys had it when I was in the body. Do you remember it i
(S. : No, I do not remember.) Here is father and he is alone again now and
I will go for a moment (p. 421).

It is correct that she " came here first and long ago." But while ii
is true that we had a large sled in the country, there were no Allei
boys in the neighbourhood. If the "Allen" be a mistake fo
" McClellan " (pp. 422, 423) it is a possible incident, but it is unverified
to say nothing of the surprise it must awaken in our minds when w
note that my sister was just two years and ten months old when sh

On May 29th, just at the close of the sitting (p. 425), she asked
" Do you remember how I looked, and the little pansie flowers I presse
in one of my books " She referred to this again on June 7th, s<
below (p. 108).

On June 1st she followed father in a most interesting communicatio
"I see you, James. I am your sister Annie . . . and I am very gL
to meet you here. Pa is better now. (8. ; Yes, I am very glad to see yoi
Do you remember when I came to this life, James? (S. : Yes, I remeinb
very well.) and did you know I did not see you ? (S. : Yes, I think s<
But I thought of you a great deal and I am thinking now of Corrn [?] C
lora [?] what father calls her . . . not quite right . . . C 1 a . . .
C or o [?]. You cannot help me can you, I mean mother. Jennie a
L U C y. (S. : I remember Lucy, but not Jennie. I think there is
Jennie, but what Lucy is this ?) She is on my mind at this moment and
want to send a message to her. (S. : Very well, send.) Do you rememt
grandmother? (S. : Yes, I remember her well.) Lucy is there and. I i
just thinking of her. Father knows about her better than I do. Yes
have waited all these years to find you and I helped father when he ca

died.

xix] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 107

here. I feel it because I do not remember more for you, James, but you
have changed also. I had a sister-in-law, so I am trying to think of her.
What is it you call her, James ? Tell : no you better not. I will tell you
pretty soon . . . very soon. I am sorry I cannot say moro, but I hope
to some day. What is meant by Peter ? Was it the dog George had ?
(S. : I do not remember.) Can't you ask him? (S. : Yes, I shall ask him
about it.) [Hand indicates fresh arrival] (p. 451).

The reference to pressing pansies is probably true. (Cf. p. 425.)
The expression " Pa is better now " is very pertinent. Every one
of us without exception always called him " Pa" until after 1877, when
I began to call him " father," as he then began calling me " James,"
instead of " Jimmie." Three of the others have always called him,
and still call him " Pa," and the sister Annie here mentioned never
knew him by any other expression, though she has in all but this
instance used " father " in these communications, ft would be natural
that she should not remember me (if this be what she meant by the
statement " I did not see you "), as she was a little less than three
years old when she died. But she ought to recall me as easily as the
"Sled"! (p. 421). But perhaps the reference more obviously means
that she did not see me at the actual time of her death, though I
witnessed it. She very gradually lapsed into unconsciousness. Her
asking me if I remembered it, her statement that she thought of me a
great deal, and her remark to me afterward that I had changed also
bear out this interpretation. The broken words " Corrn," etc., are
possibly an attempt to name my aunt Cornelia, or " aunt Cora " as we
always called her. She was my mother's sister and my mother was veiy
affectionately attached to her. The name Jennie had no meaning to
me, but I found on investigation that it is the name of the sister of
this Lucy McClellan. I never heard of this Jennie before. My sister
Annie never knew her, neither did she know Lucy, so that the state-
ment that " father knows about her better than I do " is true enough.
The reference to a " sister-in-law " is true, but there are three sisters-in-
law, and this may be a mistake for the half-sister Henrietta or Hettie.
The incident of the dog Peter I have already explained as referring to
the pet of my cousin George McClellan (p. 515).

The same remarks apply to some of the statements that I made in
reference to the last message of my brother (p. 104). They are the
work of an intermediary.

On June 7th my sister again appears just after father had tried so
hard to get the name of my stepmother. She said : —

How are you, James ? + [Imperator] sent me to speak a moment while
father goes out and returns. I am very glad to be here again. It is I, sister
Annie. (S. : Good morning. I am glad to hear you again.) I perhaps can
help you a little, James. I shall be glad if I can. Do you remember

108

J. H. Hydop, PhD.

[part

anything about birds ? (S. : Very little.) about anything I did. (S. : Yes,
I remember only one thing that you did ) Yes, but I remember the birds
very well. (S. : I am glad to hear it.) Will you ask auntie if she remem-
bers the one I caught (S. : I shall ask her), and the flowers I pressed.
Will you ask her for me. (S. : Yes, I shall ask her.) I think it was yellow
in color . . . Yes, and I bad a little pin-holder I made when I was
in the body. I think she has it now. (S. : I shall ask her.) I hope so.
Here comes father and I am going now (p. 482).

Neither the bird nor the pin-holder incident is verifiable, nor have
they to me any internal probabilities, considering her age when she
died. No one knows anything about the pressing of flowers, though it
has some possibilities. (Cf. Note p. 425).

In this instance as in the case of my brother Charles, there is litth
of the earthly life that we could expect to be remembered by one wh(
died thirty-four years ago when she was less than three years old, an<
it is not very clear which incidents are to be regarded as her owi
conscious recollections and which as related to her by others. He
correct statements were that she was my sister Annie, giving also th
name Anna (perhaps an interpolation by my mother), that she die
long ago just after Charles, that a piece of her naif was taken awaj
that a little picture of her was taken when she was very young, an
her reference to Sarah. Her use of the word Pa, the only instance i
the record, was characteristic and is specially noteworthy. But tfc
statement that she was named after aunt Nannie was a mistake. H<
reference to the Allen boys, the pressing of flowers, the pinholder, ti
birds and her catching of one, her not seeing me when she died, an
the attempt through father to " reach me " after her death cannot 1
verified. Other statements from her and perhaps some of the inciden
just mentioned apparently depend on information obtained on tl
" other side." The most important of them were the name Jennie
connection with Lucy and the specific reference to Peter as the d<
which George had.

James McClellan was my uncle; he married my father's sister £
his first wife, and my mother's sister for his second wife. He died
1876 during the winter. His own direct communications were v^e
clear, but he appeared only twice. His son Robert tried mc
frequently, but, as we have seen, was not a good communicator. J\
at the close of the sitting on May 31st (p. 445), James McClellan &
James Carruthers apparently were both present. There waa soi
confusion at first, at least in my mind, as to who was speaking : —

Recapitulation.

Statements of my uncle , James McClellan.

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 109

44 Yes, and . . . yes there were two James and do you remember an

uncle? (S. : Yes, I remember, and uncle James . what?) Well, it

is he. (S. : Which uncle James 1) H James Mc." I saw who

was meant by this and did not press for any clearer statement. I simply
replied, " Yes, that is right." He continued : 44 and a cousin John. Don't
you remember us both ? (S. : I am not sure of cousin John.) Well, I will
tell you more about myself later, and we will perhaps understand each other
. . . my sister Ann is here with . . . yes [?] Ann. Going."

I found on inquiry that he had a sister Mary Ann, and then
discovered that while at college I had known this sister as Mrs. Mary
Mitchell. It was new to me that her name had Ann in it. My first
information of her death, so far as I am aware, was received in the
above statements. (Cf. group of names p. 443 and Note 56, p. 510).

On June 1st father remarked on returning from a respite, 44 1 in-
tended to clear up about James and John Mclellen before I left" (p.
450). On June 5th my brother Charles asked me if I remembered my
uncle James McClellan (p. 463). At the sitting of June 6th, imme-
diately after my father had answered my request to tell me something
that had occurred before I was born, this uncle appeared personally,
and gave one of the finest set of pertinent and evidential incidents in
the record.

I am here once more. I am James McLellan, if you wish to know and
you are my namesake. (S. : Yes, I remember you and that I am your
namesake.) Yes, all right. We cannot quarrel about that, can we,
James, but I despised the name of Jim. (S. : Very well, I understand.)
What is it you want to kuow about Frank, or was it John who wanted to
know ? (S. : There was some confusion when Frank was mentioned, and
also when John was mentioned. Who is this cousin John that was mentioned
before ? ) It was not cousin, that was a mistake. (S. : Yes. Is he in the
body or is he in the spirit ? ) He is here, and [Hand dissents violently.] I
intend to straighten this out, but the light went out and I could not remain
there. He is a brother . . . yes, all right . . . and he will be
here soon. But it is still not straight. Wait and I will explain. You
remember brother John very well, you must if you are James. (S. : Yes,
I remember him well.) He was the one who went to war. (S. : Very
well. Go on.) Let me see. Well perhaps you remember father, do you
not ? (8. : Do you mean your father ?) Yes. (S. : Is this my uncle James
McClellan 1) Yes. (S. : No, I do not remember your father.) Well, he
was John. (S. : Very well.) John James McClellan. [James written first.
John written in front of James, then McClellan written after.] (R. H. :
James John McClellan 1) No. John James McClellan. (S. : Very well. 1
understand, and shall inquire about it.) Well, go ahead and inquire. I
think I know. (S. : Well, all right. Please tell me anything you wish to
tell.) I wanted to tell you about his going to the war, and about one of his
fingers being gone before he came here. (S. : Very well, go on, please. I
understand.) And he had a brother David, who had a S U N stroke. (S. :
1 understand. That is perfectly new to me. I never heard it before, and it

Digitized by Google

110

H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

pleases me very much to learn this fact.) Well, he never was well after he
received it until he came here. Then one more 1 wanted to speak of was
NANCY, but I cannot tell you any more now. (S. : Very good. Thank
you very much. Rest now.) Be brave, upright, honourable, do the best
you can and don't forget your uncle James Mc. Good-bye. (S. : Good-bye,
uncle, for the present.) * * * [undec. James or yours.] James
McLellan (pp. 470-472).

Now the facts as I have verified them are these : I was his name-
sake. I suspected from the statement about his despising " the name
Jim " that this might be the reason we always called him " uncle
Mack." I asked his two remaining daughters if the statement was
true, and one did not remember it, but the other did recall it at once,
and told me of several instances in which both he and his wife had
complained of his being called Jim. His father's name was John. If
the James was intended as a part of the father's name it is an error.
I never knew or heard of him, so far as I can recall, though I was
thirteen years old when he died in 1867, and I may, therefore,
once have known something about him. Also the name of my
uncle's brother is John, and him T know well. He is still
living, and in his ninetieth year, so that the prediction that he
will die soon must evidently turn out true. (Cf. Footnote, p. 471).
It was a very pertinent statement to make that I must remember
this John well, as I was at the college of which he was the treasurer,
and my uncle James died while I was in my junior year. It
is interesting to remark the mistake, and what appears to be the
immediate spontaneous correction of it, in the statement about the
war. First he said it was his brother, and then altered this to his
father. It is important to note that the other references in the passage
which I have quoted specially concern this father, and it may be
possible that my uncle James McClellan picked out the incidents
referred to for the express purpose of giving me tests upon matters
unknown to me. I found, as a matter of fact, that James McClellan s
brother John had not been in any war, neither had his father. But
another John McClellan was commissioned as an ensign on July 15th
in 1810 for the war of 181 2. 1 I found the corroboration of the
statement in the history of Greene County, Ohio, where this other
John McClellan lived. It is only stated that he was commissioned as
in i ensign as stated above. No further facts are given. I could get
no eonfltmation about the lost finger in reference to my uncles
Bather, 1>ut it was true, it appears, of the other John McClellan

1 My Uf p*t notes on the incident of John McClellan's part in the war of 1812
¥l it correction of some things said in Harper's Magazine (Vol. CI., p. 97), and
the AYjr- York Independent (Vol. LII., p. 750). Note 94 (p. 536) explains this fully.

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Plienoimna. Ill

(p. 113). I found also that he had no brother David, but he had a
brother- 1 n4aer, David Elder, who had a slight sunstroke just after the
Civil War, somewhere about 1867, according to the testimony of one of
Mr. Elder's living sons, though the other does not recall it. I had very
great difficulty in finding the persons to confirm this feet.1

Nancy was the name of the sister of this David Elder and of the
wife of old John McClellan. It is to be noted that she was mentioned
in immediate proximity to the name of her brother David. She was,
of course, the mother of my uncle James McClellan, the communicator.
I have no more conscious recollection of her than of old John
McClellan.

About half of the incidents mentioned by this communicator were
unknown to me. His correct statements on matters known to me
were that he was my uncle James McClellan, and that I was his name-
sake. Mistakes or confusions were illustrated in an earlier reference to
John as a cousin instead of a brother (p. 445), though this was
corrected later (p. 471) ; in saying that this brother had been in the
war and correcting it to his father, both being false ; in saying that
his father had lost a finger ; and perhaps in giving this father's name
as John James instead of merely John. The other John McClellan
had been in the war and had lost a finger (Note 94, p. 534). The other
statements, all substantially correct, concerned his sister Ann and the
fact that she was dead, his despising the name Jim, his father's brother
(for brother-in-law) David, and the sunstroke, and the reference to
Nancy, the name of his mother.

On May 29th (p. 421), and in close connection with the allusion
to the Cooper incident, father said : " And do you remember John T

1 It was only after the most prolonged inquiry that I obtained the verification
of the moot important incidents. I think it is worth while to indicate to the reader
the difficulties that I found in ascertaining the facts about David Elder's sunstroke.

Two of the living sons denied that their father had any brother David. This was
strictly correct, but it was interesting to observe that they did not recall an uncle by
that name «ho was their father's brother-in-law. The third son at first denied it,
and then suddenly recalled his uncle David, naming him as Elder. But he did not
know where he had lived and could not aid me in finding out anything more than the
name. I wrote to the younger brother telling him that I had found an uncle David
Elder, and he then recalled him, but did not know what had become of him, nor
where he had lived. He referred me, however, to his cousin, the daughter of this
David Elder, giving her name and address. I wrote to her and received a reply from
her daughter, saying that her mother had been dead two years— a fact not known or
remembered apparently by her cousin to whom I wrote. Through this daughter of
David Elder's sister I obtained the names and addresses of two of her uncles, sons of
David Elder. They were living in the State of Iowa, and from them I ascertained
that David Elder, their father, htd lived many years in that State and had died there
in 1885.

John McCleUan.

112

J. H. Hyslop, Pk.D.

[part

He has just come to greet you for a moment" The connection of this
name with that of Cooper, as a note shows, led me to mistake the
import of this " John." I can even now only conjecture from later
messages its possibilities. On May 30th (p. 427), my cousin, Robert
McClellan alluded to the "Williams boys," about whom I knew
nothing. But on May 31st (p. 438), at the close of father's first
communication, he said : " Here comes John and Hathaway, and he
is with him here." Immediately following this is a communication
purporting apparently to come from this John, followed by communi-
cations from my cousin Robert McClellan. Later incidents indicate
that this John was meant for John McClellan, who was not a relative
of my cousin. But the communication was : —

** Yes, is James here ? Ask him what can I do for you, my boy. I am
lwick, and I feel much freer than I have before. I just waited to clear the
way, and there is a young man here who is very kind to me. Do you
remember yet about Williams ? (S. : What Williams is it T) He is Frank.
Here apparently my father interrupts with the statement : John is anxious
to know. Speak, James." The communications continue. "(S. : I do not
remember Frank Williams, but tell me more about him, and I may recall
him.) He had two or three boys, sons, they were Arthur, Fred, and Irvin.
You must remember it seems. I am not quite sure that you hear all I say,
but take out as much as you hear. (S. : Yes, I hear it all clearly.) You
may have to find out about them if you do not remember them. (S. : Yes.
I shall try if you tell me where they lived on earth.) They lived not far
from me in Ohio, and I remember Frank very well. (S. : Did Nannie know
them ?) She must have heard about them. (S. : What kind of work did
they do ?) Frank was at the library, and sent the books over to me just
before I left." At this point my cousin, began his communications with
the question: "Do you know where Frank Hyslop is?" apparently
instigated thereto by the name "Frank" (p. 438).

No further personal communications came from this John McClellan
tm far as I can determine. But on May 30th (p. 445) the name
"John " and then " Mc John" were connected with a confused
message apjxirently from my brother Charles, who was followed by father.
That a John McClellan was meant by the name was immediately
Indicated by the statement that "there are two of the Mclellen over
tore." Then on June 1st father said (p. 448): "I intended to refer
to uncle John, but I was somewhat dazed, James." (Cf. Footnote
l»pr 17*2 173.) A little later father said again : "I intended to clear
11 1 » uhunt James and John McClellan before I left" (p. 450).

Tli' n ,-vm8 to have been some consciousness of confusion which it
desired to clear up in connection with the name of John McClellan,
i I wii iii danger of misunderstanding the relevance of the com-
eationa. And we have seen above (p. 110) in the communication
hl'h McClellan that there was some confusion between his own

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.

113

father and the other John McClellan, who had been in the war of 1812
and had lost a finger. The sequel showed that the apprehension of the
communicators was justified. For the identification of this old John
McClellan and the discovery of the pertinence of the names and
incidents in connection with him gave me much trouble (See Note 94,
p. 535). I found that the facts did not fit the father of my uncle
James McClellan. But having ascertained that there was another
John McClellan who also lived in Ohio within a few miles of my uncle's
father, I set to work to learn whether the names and incidents in
these communications in any respect applied to him, and I found that
he had been in the war of 1812, that he had lost a finger, probably
in that war, that Hathaway was his son-in-law's cousin, and that he
was himself probably connected with a Williams family, though this
was possibly as far back as 1825 or earlier. He was familiarly called
"old uncle John." This is of dubious importance (Footnote p. 472).
Nothing could be learned about the sons of Frank Williams, Fred,
Arthur, and Irvin. The reader may compare this with Professor Lodge's
incident. (Proceedings, Vol VI., pp. 527, 555-557).

Statements of other Communicators.

I may here add a few words concerning the trance personalities and
George Pelham (Q.P.), who was the chief subject of Dr. Hodgson's last
report. G.P., as we have seen, acted sometimes as an intermediary for
my relatives, but sent a few messages pertinent to Dr. Hodgson. One
incident in connection with myself I have already mentioned elsewhere.
This was the giving of the name of his brother Charles on June 7th
(p. 486) in response to my statement that I knew his brother in
Columbia University.

By the " trance personalities " I mean Imperator, Rector, Doctor
and Prudens. Their own communications are — the bulk of them — at
the beginning and the end of the sittings, and consist mostly of
conversation with Dr. Hodgson about arrangements for sittings, and
of advice and prayers for ourselves. They have no evidential value for
personal identity, the main problem of my report, whatever they may
be supposed to have for independent intelligence. Hence they can be
studied by the reader himself without comment from me. Once we
were reproved by Rector for eating too fast, and the rebuke seems to
have been merited (p. 437). At the last sitting, June 8th, they under-
took to give me a physical diagnosis, which was correct, and specially so
in regard to the weak point in my constitution, saying that it was my
stomach. They also gave me a course of diet which is unquestionably
good, and they showed by their absolute prohibition of all alcoholic
drinks that they would make good teetotalers or Prohibitionists. Their
moral and religious maxims of advice were all that could be expected
of their type, and are exceptionally lofty.

Digitized by

114

J. H. Hyslop, PhJ).

[PAKT

In fact the religious type of character exhibited by them is a most
interesting feature of the whole regime, and it seems to me quite
appropriate to collect here some of the prayers and benedictions that
were offered at the sittings by these trance personalities in the form of
automatic writing. I hardly need remind the reader of the moral and
spiritual character of these personalities that claim to supervise the
communications, but it forms one element, if only a small one, in my
estimate of the problem. In quoting the prayers I shall not include
the repetitions due to our inability to decipher, etc. It appears thai
the prayers are probably offered by Imperator, but he does not always
act as the amanuensis in the writing of them. Rector often direct
the writing as the amanuensis, the indication that both are parties t
it being found in the sign of the cross or Imperator's name and th
signature of Rector.

At the close of the sitting of December 27 th a sort of admonitoi
prayer, followed by a benediction, was offered. It was : —

" Fear not. God is ever Thy guide, and He will never fail thee. ^
cease now, and may His blessings rest on thee " (p. 344).

On February 7th, at Dr. Hodgson's sitting in my behalf, at tl
end there came : —

" May God in His tenderest Mercy lead thee into light and joy, and no
His blessings rest on thee " (p. 376).

On February 8th also at Dr. Hodgson's sitting in my behalf, a
near the beginning, Imperator acted as his own amanuensis a
wrote: —

" Holy Father, we are with Thee iu all Thy ways, and to Thee we cc
in all things. We ask Thee to give us Thy tender love and care. Besi
Thy blessings upon this Thy fellow creature, and help him to be all t
thou dost ask. Teach him to walk in the paths of righteousness and trx
He needs Thy loving care in all things. Teach him to do Thy holy will,
we leave all else in Thy hands. Without Thy care we are indeed bei
Watch over and guide his footsteps and lead him into truth and lij
Father we beseech Thee to so open the blinded eyes of mortals that t
may know more of Thee and Thy tender love and care " (p. 375).

At the sitting of June 5th at which I was present, and near
end, there came : —

" Oh, God, thou all wise Father, give us more light on the returnin
the light, and ere we return to earth * * * [undec.] we may be abl
hear distinctly and clearly the voices of Thy Messengers and all return
friends. We beseech Thee, Oh Father, to render us thy help in all
undertakings. Faileth Thy help we are indeed bereft. Merciful Fat
Oh Thou Allwise Merciful God, give us help and light " (p. 466).

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 115

Then on June 7th near the beginning came : —

"Oh, Holy Father, Thou Divine Being, maker of heaven and earth, we
beseech Thee this day to send light unto Thy fellow beings. Keep them,
oh Father, in the paths of righteousness and virtue. Lead them to know
more of Thee and Thy wondrous workings for the redemption of their own
souls. We ask for no more, but leave all else to Thee " (p. 477).

Statistical Summary.1

It will aid in a clear conception of the facts in the communications
if we give such a statistical summary of them as is possible. This
cannot be done in the same manner that facts and events of the same
kind usually can be classified, but they can be grouped in a way
suitable to a rough comparison, that will supply the relative number of
true and false incidents with which we have to reckon in making up
our conclusions in the case.

The basis of classification that has been adopted rests upon the
distinction between the true, the false, the indeterminate, and the
mixed incidents. An incident in the classification does not mean
merely some name or isolated fact, but may include a number of facts
capable of being independent of each other in the course of events.
Hence I have distinguished between an incident and the number of
factors that may constitute it. An incident may be any name, con-
ception, or combination of conceptions making a single possible and
independent fact, or it may be any combination of possibly independent
facts constituting some fact that was a single whole in the mind of the
communicator. I shall illustrate what I mean by both applications of
the term. A single proper name may be called an " incident " of one
factor; so may any proposition indicating some single fact. Or an
" incident " may be such a statement as that " my Aunt Susan visited
my brother." Here there are four factors in the single " incident,1' that
are not necessarily connected with each other. There is nothing in the
use of the name "aunt " to suggest the name " Susan," nor in both of
them to suggest to any one either the idea of a visit or that the visit
was paid to a brother. There are any number of possibilities in the
combination of ideas with either the concepts "aunt" or "Susan."
Hence this can be treated as one of the synthetic incidents, as I call
such cases in the discussion of certain problems. Or, again, to say

1 Farther inquiries made after this statistical summary was drawn up resulted in
•bowing that some incidents which I had set down as true were false ; that some
incklenU which I had set down as false were true ; and that some incidents which I
had set down as indeterminate were true. As the work of tabulating the incident*
wss a very laborious one, and as the result of further inquiry had improved the
•videnc* on the whole, I have not revised the summary, but have preferred to leave
it in the form most unfavourable to the Bpiritistic theory.

Digitized

byGA^gle

116

J. H. Hyslop, PhJ).

[pabt

mm.! i
1

that " my uncle hurt his foot on the railway " would be to give one
incident with three factors in it. But I have also chosen to charac-
terise by the same term a class of communications which, though they
did not represent a synthetic and single whole in the actual life of the
communicator, yet seem to have that kind of mental unity in the
communicator's mind which allows them to be spoken of as a whole
with a number of factors. The line is not easily drawn between the
synthetic event which was an actual fact in the life of the com-
municator and one that is the creation of his mind at the time of the
message. For certain purposes in the argument it does not make any
difference whether we distinguish between them or not, while also the
factors retain all their value whether so connected or not. I have also
often classified as "incidents" a series of communications which,
though they do not represent any single event in life when taken
together, yet represent a natural group of facts in one continued
message. The main line distinguishing between the facts classed in
one incident and those in another will be either the distinctly synthetic
character of one as compared with another, or sufficient interruption
and separation in the messages to justify speaking of two incidents
instead of one. But the factors represent, as indicated, those facts,
names, actions, or events that do not necessarily suggest each other, or
are not necessarily suggested by any given name or fact. This analysis
of a communication enables us to see more clearly how difficult it is
to explain any complex circumstances by an easy theory. It is an
important question in the consideration of chance, where we have to
suppose that the brain of the medium has no clue to follow, either
before any correct start has been obtained, or after it. It will be an
important problem to determine how the unity of consciousness
involved in such cases can be produced without some resort to intelli-
gence, whether supernormal or not.

The table in which the facts are summarised does not classify them
with reference to their value, evidential or otherwise, but only with
reference to their truth or falsity. Facts, names, or events, with-
out any evidential value, may be classed with those having this quality
in a very high degree. This must be kept in mind when examining the
table, as I do not mean to make the case appear any stronger from the
mero force of figures, though in estimating the relation of the pheno-
mena to chance we may safely rely upon this circumstance. I have
been asked what proportion of truth to error is found in the
and 1 vi'M not answer this query any other way than by
^ the comparison which the table gives, but this must not be
as implying that all the facts have the same evidential
truth is that there are many true incidents that are far
fit all, but they are nevertheless true and capable of

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 117

general comparison with the false. Also I should add that the
classification does not include mere repetitions.

The rules which have governed this classification should be indi-
cated. I have classed as false one incident with seven factors because
it is wholly inapplicable to my family, and so false in that relation,
though it might represent a true set of facts capable of proving identity
to the parties concerned. It has been the same with some other cases
classed as false. For instance, certain incidents that might be attributed
to mistakes of memory, such as those to which we are all liable, have
been classed as false, and thus appear to have the negative value that
suggests difficulties, but as false incidents they are very different in
type from those that even suggest the truth that they fail to state.
Similarly I might have treated certain incidents due to confusion of
the communicator at the time. In this it will be apparent that the
number of wholly false incidents might be considerably reduced, but I
have not allowed myself any rights in this matter, but have judged
of the case strictly, leaving to explanations of this kind the modifica-
tion which is due the incidents. The false thus obtains, when it does
not represent a mistake, some of the possible characteristics of the
indeterminate, but the true cases have their whole meaning determined
by their relation to the sitter. Whatever apology, however, is possible
for the false as here represented, nevertheless it must have all the
negative force of total error when measured against the true.

The class of indeterminate incident contains two types. First,
there is that class which represents facts purporting to be events in the
earthly life of the communicator, which I could not verify, though they
are possible or even probable ; for example, my father's reference to the
broken wheel. The second class contains alleged incidents in the
transcendental world which it is impossible to verify, but which repre-
sent statements on the same level as the verifiable ; for instance, my
brother Charles' reference to his hearing father and mother talking
about the chimney. If rejected altogether they diminish the number
of indeterminate incidents.

The above general explanation will enable the reader to understand
the tabular review which follows. For example, to take the second
sitting out of my first four it is seen, on consulting Table I., that of the
true incidents there were three with one factor each ; one with two
factors ; one with three ; three with four each; one with six, and one
with eleven ; no incidents that were false ; one that was indeterminate
with three factors, and one mixed incident with nine factors, of which
eight factors were true and one false. The Roman numerals indicate
the number of the sitting in each set.

I must warn the reader that I attach no intrinsic value to this
statistical review, but present it only as a concession to the statistically

118

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

inclined person. Its fundamental fault is that it both puts the most
complex incident on the level of the simplest, and conceals the
evidential importance of all of them in respect of their quality, which
is far more important than mere quantity alone. The review is a con-
venient ad hominem argument against those who might wish to appeal
to chance on the basis of mere number, if we once accept the correct-
ness of the classification of the incidents, but it cannot affect any
judgment that is not enamoured of figures. Perhaps it has the merit
of affording a sort of bird's-eye view of the number of incidents that
are synthetic as distinguished from those that are simple, and also some
conception of the degree of complexity involved. But all this depends
on the criterion for determining the " single " incident and the amount
of complexity, and hence the table must be treated as merely a rough
attempt to suggest the comparison between the true and false at largt
in the record. This one numerical result may have some value.

Ta^le I. — First Four Sittings.

True

False

INDBTERM.

Mixed

Inc.

Fac

Inc.

Fac

Inc.

Fac.

Inc.

Fac

True.

False.

Indetenn.

t
1.

II.

III.

IV.

Summary

Digitized by

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 119

Table II. — Dr. Hodgson's Sittings.

True

False

IKDETERM.

Mixed

IBC1,

Fac.

Inc. | Fac

Inc. |

Fac

Inc.

Fac[

Troe.

False.

Indeterm.

2 1

1 1

6 1

1
1

TT
11.

2 I

_ i

3 1

— 1

—

1 1

TTT

1 !

— '

—

— j

—

IV.

—

Summary

I —

Digitized by

120 /. H. Hyalop, PhJ). [p.

Table III. — Last Eight Sittings.

True

False

iNDETKRM.

Mixed

Inc.

Fac.

Inc.

Fac

Inc.

Fac

Inc

Fac.

True.

False.

IndeU

—

o
Z

o
z

Q
O

—

II.

o
z

i
i

«5

Q
O

—

(

III.

o
Z

—

iy.

—

■7
1

o
Z

—

o
z

Q
O

—

VI.

—

ift

JLO

VII.

—

o
o

i
1

o
o

Q
O

—

VIII.

—

1
1

—

Summary

Digitized by

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 121
Table IV. — Total Summary.

True

False

INDETERM.

Mixed

Inc.

Ffcc

ac.

rue.

86.

.IXIUWOt LU.

152

369

348

224

True Incidents. False Incidents. Indeterminate Incidents.

152 16 37

True Factors. False Factors. Indeterminate Factors. '

717 43 167

The nature of some of the factors makes it impossible to lay any
special stress for evidential purposes upon the discrepancies between
the true and the false, except in treating of the general question
regarding the importance of the phenomena and the consideration of
chance. I have also shown how misleading the class called false is
from the admission of incidents and factors that might be classed with
the indeterminate. Similarly the indeterminate could be reduced by
omitting the incidents having an alleged transcendental occurrence.
This would greatly diminish the ratios between them and the true.
But it is certainly very interesting to find so small a proportion of
errors even when straining the case in their favour. In anything
genuine the indeterminate ought to occur, and it is no less interesting
to find their small ratio in the case. And it is to be specially noted
that the indeterminate incidents increase precisely where we should
expect the living human memory to be defective. Compare my father's
communications respecting his boyhood (pp. 469-470).

The best place to study these classes of incidents is in the
individual sittings where the relations between the true, the false,
and the indeterminate can be seen in their proper proportions. The
total summary has no other value than the comparison of simple and
complex incidents. Thus we find that throughout the whole series or

Digitized by Google

122

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

experiments, there are forty-four incidents with but one factor in them.
Such cases are more amenable to all sorts of objections than those
which represent a combination of two or more independent factors that
have no necessary connection with each other. Hence the summary
shows the comparative importance of the incidents in so far as the mere
number of factors composing them is concerned. But it does nothing
more, while the individual sittings bring us into a clearer comprehension
of such incidents in detail, and the individual incident when complex
is still better than groups of them for evidential study, except when
taken collectively. But the statistical account affords both a bird's-eye
view of the numerical relations in the whole and an interesting com-
parison of the separate series of sittings with each other.

In looking at them, the most striking fact that meets the attention
at once is the great number of mixed cases, as compared with the
wholly false and the indeterminate. Perhaps still more noticeable is
the smaller number of factors that are indeterminate in the mixed
than those that are false. The whole matter, however, must depend
upon the criterion used in the classification of incidents as mixed. If
the line were drawn differently in some cases, we should increase the
number of wholly true incidents and also the number in the false and
the indeterminate. It would not alter the ratio between the true and
the false on the whole, but it would alter the appearance of the table.
But I tried to define the mixed class as strictly as possible.

A very interesting fact also is the difference between Dr. Hodgson's
sittings and my own in respect of incidents of any sort. His fourth
sitting appears to be absolutely worthless evidentially. I thought the
first three should be included in this judgment until my investigations
in the West discovered facts that I had previously supposed were false
or worthless. His last sitting, however, as remarked already, is about
as good as any of those at which I was present. One is tempted to ask
the question whether the presence of someone as sitter who is an inti-
mate friend or relative of the communicator may not qualify the latter
lot better work, just as some relic is supposed to do this. The question,
tA courae, cannot be answered positively. But if the communicator's
pergonal interest in the sitter can improve the messages by influencing
tho nl tint ion, this view is borne out by my last sitting, in which not a
tiiii^k- mixed incident occurs, and also no false ones. Does not this

wn i nice confirm my supposition as to the source of the difficulty

in Dr. Hodgson's sittings ? The affirmative answer to this must be
uivlv ^u-culative, and I do not urge it, though it is worth while to
H attention to a coincidence which agrees with the fact that in all
in'i ixtic phenomena, so-called at least, this peculiar connection between
J titter and the communicator seems to prevail and to affect the
in the way remarked. But whatever explanation be probable,

Digitized by Google

xu] Observations of Certain Trance Phenaniena. 123

it is evident that my last sitting, when I deliberately conversed with
the communicator in a way that I had refrained from doing before,
commanded the communicator's interest and attention, so that I elicited
a clearness in communications which I had not effected before (Cf.
pp. 489-496). Many of the most important and evidential facts in
the experiments were obtained at this sitting.

There is another most interesting fact to be noticed. As the
incidents increase in the number of factors composing them, they
decrease in their own number. This would be natural perhaps, but
it coincides in these experiments with the fact that the communicator
cannot usually remain long in contact with the "machine," and with
the fact that the intervals of respite interrupt the narrative in favour
of beginning new incidents. Hence the most complex incidents seem
to exhaust a period of communication, while a number of simple ones
can be given in the same period. The apparent result would be
altered, however, if some cases classed as single incidents were broken
up into several, though their value would not be changed.

Many of the most important features of the record cannot be
expressed at all in this tabular account. They are statements which
show the proper appreciation of questions, remarks, or other aspects of
a situation, and also incidents of emotional tone. All that the table
can recognise is the number of objective facts stated as such, chiefly,
of course, concerning the earthly experiences of the communicator.
Much other pertinent matter cannot be included, even though it is not
without influence on one's convictions in estimating the whole.

Digitized by

124

J. H. Hydop, PhD-

[part

CHAPTER ni.

The Telepathic Hypothesis.1

In taking up the attempts to explain such phenomena, the tele-
pathic hypothesis is the first naturally to come under review. This is
the case, of course, for all psychical researchers who suppose that other
objections to spiritism have been non-suited. The reader will have
already learned (p. 16) that I do not intend to consider how fai
subliminal fraud, fishing and guessing are applicable to this and othe
Piper records. The reasons for adopting this course are various. Som
of them are implied in later discussions. But the chief reason is that
do not think that such suppositions can be either consistently <
rationally carried out, even if we make them adjuncts to telepathy,
leave to the ingenuity of a priori speculation the combination
assumptions necessary to meet the simple hypothesis which I Ks
preferred to defend as satisfactory for the present. Hence, with 1
refusal to consider these, telepathy is the only real or apparent difficu
in its connection with secondary personality that I shall consider. 1

1 It is important in considering the telepathic theory to examine two things al
it before measuring its application to the facts here recorded. The first is or oonc
what telepathy really means, and the second is the reason for invoking it in
explanation of such facts in any case.

In taking up the first of these topics, the nature of telepathy, it will be impo
to recognise a current distinction of some value. This is the difference bet
telepathy at a distance, as the word etymologically imports, and direct tbo
transference from the mind of the sitter, or experimenter, immediately present,
have supposed that if you only exclude thought-transference from the sitter, an<
that of the actually existing states of consciousness in the person at a distance, y oi
proved the spiritistic hypothesis once for all. This may "be true as a matter of fa*
it is not the assumption upon which the psychical researcher has to work. F<
subliminal telepathy present and at a distance has to be eliminated in some way
surrendering. Hence, for the purpose which we have in view here, the technic
tinction between the two conceptions will not subserve any important end. evider
though it would help in understanding both the complexity of the problem and th
tional difficulties involved in telepathy at a distance over and above those in th
transference at hand. This analysis I shall give of the matter for occasional use
discussion where I may find it necessary to economise time and space. But for the i
comprehension of the problem and of the meaning which I shall usually attach
term, I shall only remark that I do not intend to recognise any qualitative dif
between telepathy at a distance and thought-transference at hand, simply beca
have to produce evidence that both are insufficient to account for the phei
before resorting to spiritism. This is evident. But I shall analyse the cam
though briefly, for the sake of clearness in comprehending it. If I could
substitute a general term for telepathy I should do it, and employ this latter
technical meaning as often understood, but I fear that it would only 1
confusion.

In transcending sensory perception we may conceive all acquisition of i<
Transperception, or Transcognition, and thus have a term for a few min

XLL] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 125

in the discussion of the subject I wish to keep the conceptions of
telepathy and secondary personality distinct from each other as
functional processes of the brain or mind as the case may be.

I wish, therefore, *to examine first the strength of the telepathic
hypothesis, as against spiritism, before approaching the objections to
it. This procedure will enable the reader to observe what I have
taken into account in rejecting it in favour of its alternative. First, I
simply assume it as a fact sufficiently attested by evidence outside
the Piper case, as well as by the phenomena in that case which make
the supposition necessary for all attempts to escape spiritism. The
only problem that remains is to see if the supposition will stand the
strain that must be put upon it to meet the emergency. That is, can
we push its implications so far that spiritism becomes preferable by
virtue of the very magnitude of our suppositions to escape it.

Now a priori its strength lies in the assumption that it has no
proved limitations in space and temporal coincidence with present
active consciousness. We may have no right to this assumption, but
in the absence of any demonstrable limits to transperception, after
sensory experience has been transcended, we must be prepared for any
suppositions whatever, especially when we add to this extension of

represent every possible conception for which telepathy has had to stand. I might
even coin a more technical term, namely, Noopathy, which I should actually like to
see come into use, as convenient for indicating the process that has to be eliminated
in order to finally establish the spiritistic theory. This Noopathy, or Transperception
could be subdivided into Telepathy, or thought-transference at a distance, and
Parapathy, or thought- transference at hand, limiting the term, of course, to a process
between the living. I also coin the latter term for its technical purpose. Each of
these can be subdivided into two distinct problems, namely, transperception from the
supraliminal, and transperception from the subliminal of the agent. But the present
problem will not require any special use of this distinction, as the record shows how
little supraliminal transperception has to do with the theories necessary to explain
the phenomena. But the tabular analysis, representing the various possible problems
that have to be ultimately considered in making up one's mind on the hypothesis to
be adopted, will stand as follows : —

C ( From the supraliminal.

Telepathy

Noopathy -

From the subliminal.

{From the supraliminal.
From the subliminal.

The superficial distinction between telepathy and parapathy in this table is
ely spaciaL But it is in fact far more profound. Telepathy under all physical
analogies has to contend with the laws of distribution of energy, which represent its
variation inversely with the distance. Of course it may be wholly different with
mental phenomena, but once concede this difference and physical explanations are
thrown out of consideration, and the presumptions are in favour of a mind or soul

Digitized by Google

126

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

possibilities that of disregarding the distinction between present and
past states of consciousness in the telepathic acquisitions. The very
conception with which we start, therefore, involves enormous difficulties
to be overcome, whether they be of arbitrary making or not. The
second consideration in favour of accepting telepathy as an important
alternative in the case, is the fact that an immense mass of evidence on
hand bears no indications of personal identity, whereas evidence of
this is indispensable to the spiritistic theory, and hence suggests the
explanation of the more complex by the more simple. In all our cases
of experimental telepathy there are no traces of coincidences that
would suggest spirits as the cause (Cf Proceedings, Vol. I., pp. 13-64,
70-98, 161-216, and 263-282 ; Vol. II., pp. 1-12, 24-42, 189-200,
207-216, 239-264; Vol. III., pp. 424-452; Vol. IV., pp. 111-126;
127-188, 324-337 ; Vol. V., pp. 18-168, 169-207, 355-359; Vol. VI.,
pp. 128-170, 358-397 ; Vol. VII., pp. 3-22, 374-382; Vol. VIII.,
pp. 422-435, 536-596 ; Vol. XL, pp. 2-17; also Phantasms of the
Living, Vol. I., pp. 10-85 ; Apparitions and Thought Transference, by
Frank Pod more, pp. 18-143). Nor do we find any definable limits
to it from space and temporal coincidence except in some instances by
Mrs. Sidgwick and Miss Johnson, where distance seemed to affect the
number of successes (Cf Proceedings, Vol. VIII., pp. 536-596). There

which, under physical conceptions, is still tub judice. But besides having to contend
with the known laws of distribution of energy, telepathy also represents a much
wider h elective power in its acquisition than parapathy, and for this reason the
technical distinction would be useful in certain discussions. But as we have to over-
come every possible form of transperception, or transcendental cognition either
evidentially or in conceivability, we need not confuse the present discussion with any
other use of the term telepathy than is customary in psychical research. This will be
apparent from the following delimitation of the problem.

If the alternatives were between spiritism and either parapathy or telepathy from
the supraliminal of the agents, the case would be demonstrated in favour of spiritism,
as every one would admit. But as the psychical researcher has to assume that this
alternative is at least between spiritism and parapathy from the subliminal of the
agents, the problem is complicated with the whole field of memory and so made much
larger, though it is already clear in the Piper phenomena that on that conception of
th* choice th« ease would be unequivocally in favour of spiritism. But if we have
Uj t&kt* telepathy into account, as defined in the table, the alternatives are very
and the problem evidentially very much larger. The question would then be
Noopathj and Spiritism, as perhaps it is for the lack of any definable limits
tal acquisitions transcending sensory methods,
lint vnbiaibh* :i* such a complete analysis and the more technical use of new and
terms may V«s 1 shall not complicate the present discussion by imposing any new
faultier npori the student in reading this report. I give the analysis in order to

vth&t u j option of the problem is before me, and permit the reader to apply
SBjuiry mining of the term telepathy as the exigency of the special case
- I d-m-*- I shall use it as convertible with transperception, or noopathy.

p till another fact in regard to the meaning of the term telepathy,
mtW noopathy or parapathy. Before assuming that it represents a
"*hju lly displaces spiritism, we require to recognise that its meaning

xxx] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 127

is in all of these no suggestion of personal identity, and hence if we
once assume a non-spiritistic supernormal power sufficient to account
for the coincidences, experimental and spontaneous, that are found in
our Proceedings, we have a serious task to set aside that assumption.
But it must be strained beyond acceptance before its alternative,
spiritism, can be tolerated. That, I think, is a truism for the psychical
researcher, and requires re-statement here only for those who are not
familiar with our reports, and who may not otherwise understand the
difficulties which I have been forced to consider before reaching my
present convictions on the Piper phenomena.

Now in estimating the application of telepathy to the facts adduced
in the record of my experiments the task of refuting that hypothesis
would be an exceedingly easy one, if I had only to compare the results
with my consciousness at the time. There is scarcely a single spon-
taneous incident, if any at all, in the whole twelve personal sittings, to
say nothing of Dr. Hodgson1 s five held while I was absent in New York,
that represented a present state of my active consciousness until the com-
munication made it such after the writing. I watched very care-
fully for the influence of present states on the content of the messages
and found not the slightest trace of a causal nexus. This is a circum-
stance, however, that only the sitter can fully appreciate, as the record

definitely implies the modus operandi of the process that excludes spiritism. As
a fact, the term is not necessarily antagonistic to spiritism. There is one con-
ception of it, possible at least, which does not contravene the theory which is
here represented as its alternative, bat which may allow us actually to invoke
spiritism as an explanation of the coincidences and assumed transmission of thought
that has induced us to consider telepathy as a fact at all. That is to say, tele-
pathy might be the modu$ operandi of spiritistic agency in producing the
coincidences which we are trying to explain away by the term. Not that I
should advocate that conception of the process, but that our ignorance of the nature
of the process permits us to assume that possibility a priori. Thus, if telepathy
be a mere name for the transmission of ideas from one mind to another, or the coin-
cidences that go under that name, we have no other conception of it than that of facts
that require a eautal explanation. Nothing is implied as to the intermediaries in the
case. That must remain an open question. Assuming then that telepathy is nothing
but a name for coincidences that demand a cause independent of sensory mediation,
we could also assume with tolerable impunity that spirits are the media for effecting
the phenomena, if we have any other grounds for supposing them to exist. But it is
the want of evidence for the latter hypothesis that necessitates making the causal
nexus one of immediate transmission between incarnate minds. Hence, though our
ignorance of the real process is great enough to admit spiritistic agency as possible in
mediating the coincidences, yet such a supposition serves no useful purpose in the
premises, and only begs the question at issue, until we know more about it. That the
spiritistic theory can be used to cover phenomena accredited to telepathy pure and
t imple is indicated both by the incidents in Dr. Hodgson's experiments with G. P. (c/.
Proceedings, VoL XIII., pp. 304-308, 313-315), and by the attempt to decide whether
the nets indicated a preference for the spiritistic nature of Dr. Phinuit, as a pre-
condition of simpler explanation of his doings than the secondary personality of Mrc,
Piper {ef. Proceedings, Vol. VIII., pp. 28-46, 54-56). But this discounts the evidential

128

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

does not show what he was thinking about prior to the communica-
tions. All that I can do, therefore, is to indicate that this difficulty
has been adequately considered and met by an absolute disparity
between the two sets of phenomena, in so far as the causal influence o
the present states is concerned. I took special occasion to test thi
matter and found all grounds for such hypotheses wanting. Fc
instance, if the present state affected either the manner or content <
the messages, the mental perturbation or confusion as to what w
meant by certain messages should have reflected itself in a correspon
ing confusion in the communication. Of course, there were occask
when my own confusion was coincident with the confusion in the reco
but this was due primarily to the confusion in the communication t
not to myself. It was too often my ignorance of the facts commi
cated that produced my confusion to suppose any influence from
state of mind upon the results. Besides, inquiry developed the fact 1
some of the best incidents which were wholly unintelligible to m
the time, but verified afterward, were coincident with mental confu
on my part. Dr. Hodgson's five sittings while I was absent are a 1
objection to any supposition of this kind. To psychical researt
this goes without saying. (Cf. Proceedings, Vol. VI., pp. 453, 5C
and Vol. VIII., p. 10.)

In line with the same thought it is interesting to remark that 1
not dreamed of hearing from several of the communicators, and 8€

problem which, many suppose, requires that in some way we transcend telepathy o
sort as a condition of making any other hypothesis that will subordinate it in tl
Hence with scientific method to satisfy, which keeps us within the field of a direct
for the mediation of telepathic coincidences, we have to assume this in
explanations and thus conceive it as antagonistic to spiritism, at least in its ev
aspects, if not in its process. Consequently, though I see nothing- in the xn
of thought transmission, conceived as a coincidence requiring a causal explans
militate against spiritism either as a general theory, or as the agency for effec
coincidence {cf. Proceedings, Vol. XV., p. 18), nevertheless the circumstar
many of the coincidences do not furnish any evidence of personal identity 1
imperative to assume the possibility that the process is a direct one between ii
minds, and thus conceive it as antagonistic to spiritism until it is shown to 1
an independent or a subordinate agency in such phenomena.

The result of these two considerations, therefore, is that I shall treat 1
telepathy as a name for a causal coincidence whose modus operandi is wholly \
(cf. Proceedings, Vol. XIV., p. 160), and indifferent to the limitations
(ef. Proceedings, Vol. XII., p. 174) and of temporal coincidence with preeen
states thus making it preferable to assume the possibility of a direct process
living minds, as long, at least, as it does not attempt to produce the personal
of the dead. It is important to remark for the benefit of the scientific Philis
unless this view of the case be admitted there is absolutely no escape 1
spiritistic theory. That theory would then have nothing but fraud aa its alt
and the task of the psychical researcher would be a very easy one. Hence if
treat telepathy, conceived in the sense deBned for the purpoee here, as an all
to spiritism, I should not find it necessary to discuss the question beyond t
ment of the facts in my note3 to the communications.

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 129

persons that I had expected on the telepathic theory made no appear-
ance whatever. I had expected to hear from three on every imaginable
theory of such phenomena, but one of these and a fourth who was
desired show not a trace of themselves. Besides, although I got traces
of two sisters long since deceased, and although there was much in my
supraliminal and subliminal about them neither telepathy nor the
dramatic personations of secondary personality presented them as
personal communicators. It would have been useless to do so in any
attempt to establish identity, since what I knew about them was
merely told me after their deaths. On the telepathic theory I should
have heard from them as well as from Charles and Anna. But
does telepathy limit itself to common experiences between the
sitter and the alleged communicator, excluding other derived know-
ledge associated with the persons, or are Imperator and Rector wise
enough not to undertake communications that have no chance of
proving personal identity, as they could not have done in the case of
the two sisters indicated 1

This is a very important conclusion, not only because it excludes
the whole theory of telepathy from the case, if that doctrine is made
convertible with the transperception of existing states of conscious-
ness, but also because it represents a fact quite at variance with the
whole record of experimental telepathy as referred to above, where
telepathy obtained access to the intended ideas of the agent, even
though this is sometimes, if not always, postponed for a short time. If
experimental telepathy indicates some connection, though slightly
deferred, between present consciousness and the fact obtained by the
percipient, we ought not to find such uniform variance with the sitter's
consciousness in the Piper case and the incidents communicated.

A conclusion based upon this circumstance would throw telepathy
out of consideration. But, unfortunately for spiritism (I am willing
to say fortunately for both this theory and the interests of civilisation)
the problem is not so simple. We have to assume a far larger possi-
bility in the case, and this is the acquisition of facts from the subliminal
of the agent. Whether it is absolutely imperative or not to assume
telepathic access to subliminal knowledge I shall not decide. There is
some evidence that it is a fact. The circumstance that the telepathic
acquisition seems never to be instantaneous upon the inception of the
agent's thought rather suggests the assumption. Especial evidence for
this is noticeable in certain interesting cases (Cf. Proceedings, VoL
YIII., pp. 14, 548, 561). Consequently our duty is clear in such
premises, and the problem becomes correspondingly difficult, as it is all
but impossible to assert with absolute assurance that certain things
have never been in one's knowledge. There will be evidences of this
in my own record. (See pp. 337, 341, 440.)

Digitized by Google

130

H. Hyalop, PLD.

Assuming then that telepathy may have access to the whol
of the individual's experience, supraliminal or subliminal, there
the significant remark to be made, in suspicion of its capacity
the phenomena of this record, that both in my own experime
apparently those of all others in the Piper case, there is no pei
distinction drawn by that process between ideas present an
past but recognised, and so present after recognition, or betwee
of these and ideas wholly forgotten and unrecognisable on sug
The indifference of the process to absolute distinctions for oui
tion of knowledge is most amazing, and has no analogies or su]
philosophy of any sort. This indifference also extends still
The access may be to facts not known to the sitter at all, anc
able only at a distance from some unknown person. Of this a
am now merely indicating the fact which shows that we cannc
or suppose that any condition of an idea in the sitter's mind or
whether supraliminal or subliminal, recognisable or unrecognisj
any determining influence one way or the other on telepathic
tion. This is a suspicious fact for the theory. I do not say tl
an objection, for the present state of our knowledge does not j
positive a statement until we have tried implications of th
much farther. But I do say that, when the phenomena of t
case represent so clearly the character of personal identity of
we once knew, and all in contrast to the ordinary results oi
mental telepathy, this indifference to the distinctions whicl
natural to our usual psychology is more consistent with the 8
theory, where we can assume the known mental laws, th
telepathy which at least appears to contravene them, and wh
does not contravene them, seems to demand a wholly net
mental action quite as unrecognised in psychology and phy
spiritism

There is a peculiarity about this indifference to ordinar
logical laws and distinctions which indicates that on the telepatl
the process is hardly consistent with itself. The manner ir
defies our recollections, and the wonderful range of its pc
important and trivial matters alike rather indicate that confu
mistakes ought not to occur at all. When the most difficult an
incidents are rattled off at a breakneck pace, and with appare
times, it is absurd for a process which is wholly indifferent, pr»
to psychological laws as we know them, to falter and show coi
some simple fact involving no necessary complications. The
of facility and difficulty in the communications bear no de
relation either to the nature and complexities of the incident
to the mental condition of the sitter. On the contrary
mixture of the known and the forgotten, or of the known ancl

Digitized by

ill] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 131

in the mind of the sitter, with absolute disregard of space and time
limitations, all in the same sentence, makes the mistakes and confusions
seem absurd in most, if not in all cases, on the theory of telepathic
access, They would appear quite conceivable on the spiritistic hypo-
thesis, as we should expect from known laws of mental action both
confusion in such circumstances and a selection of incidents with
reference to an interest and a unity wholly outside the experience of
the sitter.

This last statement is illustrated, and telepathy at short range
dismissed from view, by the large number of facts in the Piper record
that show their origin beyond the mind of the sitter altogether. But
I shall confine my instances to my own record where they are suffi-
ciently numerous and complicated not to be discredited.

I shall enumerate the incidents bearing upon this argument in
several classes, which may be indicated by Roman numerals. Class I.
will contain those which I thought at the time they were given that I
had never known, or that they were false, but which inquiry proved
to have been at one time in my consciousness. Class II. will contain
those which in all probability I never knew, but which, owing to the
circumstances, I cannot prove were unknown. Class III., if the
incidents can be admitted as evidential on the ground of my inter-
pretation of them, will contain those which were unknown to me.
Class IV. will contain those which I knew which Dr. Hodgson did not
know, and which were given at the sittings that he held in my behalf.
Class V. will contain the incidents which were given in the sittings at
which I was present, and which I most certainly, that is without
reasonable doubt, did not know until verified.

The reader may wish to know that the only fact which had been
told Dr. Hodgson about my father was that my father was deceased.
I mentioned no name and no incident in his life, except that I had
told my father on his death bed to come to me after it was all over.
This was a year or more before my sittings. Also I might say in
regard to the mere question of the sitter's relation to the facts com-
municated I could have included Class IV. in Class V. This would
increase that number considerably for the purposes of theoretical
discussion.

Clots I — These are the Swedenborg incident (p. 31), the
strychnine in connection with the Hyomei (p. 38), my father's visit
to me in Chicago (p. 440), the curved handled cane which was repaired
with a tin ring (p. 58).

Clas* II. — The organ incident in connection with Harper Crawford
and the church (p. 82), the black skull cap (p. 43), and the visit
to George and Will before going West (p. 72).

132

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[PART

Class ///.—There are « Munyon's Germicide " (p. 39), the
Maltiue (p. 39), the reference to the "ring" on the cane (p. 59), the
possible reference of my cousin to his sister as his aunt (p. 232), the
reference to the book of poems (p. 99), the full pertinence o! tb<
allusion to my brother George in the matter of settling the estafo
(p. 85), the reason for connecting Harper Crawford with the orga
incident (p. 83), the name Maria in close connection with the refei
ence to " John's wife " (p. 443), the trouble with my brother a\»\
fishing (p. 77), the mole near the ear (p. 49).

The sceptically inclined critic may prefer to say that Classes I., I
and III. can have no significance, the first being confessedly in i
subliminal memory, the second doubtlessly in it and the third 1
dubious in interpretation to admit of consideration. But whatever n
be said of these the following incidents are exempt from this soit
criticism, Class IV. having been obtained at Dr. Hodgson's sitti
when I was not present) and Class V. being unknown to me. The
eight incidents of Class V. were obtained at Dr. Hodgson's sitting
my behalf. In all they constitute a numerous and important se
incidents bearing upon the tenability of the telepathic hypothesis.

Class IV. — Of these there are my father's inquiry about his p<
special quill (p. 54), the fact that we grew more companionable t
grew older (p. 387), the reference to his preaching (p. 55), the a
given to me when I started to college (non-evidential) with its p
"Want for nothing" (p. 61), his feelings at the time (p. 61), the
sion-to the rough roads and country, the name of Ohio as com
with my father, the talk with the principal of the school, an
anxieties of my father, Aunt Nannie, and myself in connection
my brother George (p. 61), my father's moving West and sepa
from me with my ignorance of his habits and dress (p. 43), the i
carved on the end of the cane (p. 57), the reference to Hyorn
" vapor " (p. 39), the mention of the tokens (p. 54).

Class V. — I shall enumerate these as briefly as possible wi
references. The Cooper case with its reference to discussions,
ship, Correspondence, and especially the Cooper school (pp. I
the paper cutter (p 50), the writing pad (p. 49), the dog Petei
George had (p. 96), the name of Jennie in connection witl
(p. 106), the change in the name of my aunt Eliza (p. 82), ra
James McClellan's dislike of the name Jim (p. 109), his fri
for Dr. Cooper (p. 52), and the name of his mother Nancy (
the name of my uncle's father, John (p. 110), the fact that
McClellan was in the war (p. 113), the name Hathaway and
nection with this John McClellan (p. 112), that this John M
was familiarly called " Uncle John," being no relative and noi

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 133

to me (p. 113), the incident of his lost finger (p. 113), the sun-
stroke incident and its connection with the name David, the name of
the brother-in-law (p. Ill), the statement about myself put apparently
into the mouth of my stepmother (p. 75), the reference to my uncle's
walks, drives, etc. (p. 91), my aunt's dream (p. 91), the special
pertinence of the allusion to my aunt Eliza's despair (p. 91), my
father's habit of using the phrase, " Give me my hat " (p. 23), the
incident of the fire which gave my father his fright (p. 34), the stool
incident (p. 65), the name Ann as that of my uncle James McClellan's
sister and the fact of her death (p. 109), the connection of my brother
George with the disposal of the horse Tom (p. 65), the brown-handled
knife and paring the finger nails with it (p. 42), the description of the use
of the cane, including the reference to the manner of calling my step-
mother with it, drawing it across his knees, and keeping time with
music (p. 58), the trouble with the left eye (p. 49), the round and
square bottles on the desk (p. 57), the incident of the hymn " Nearer
my God to Thee" (p. 56), "the preparation of Oil" (p. 39), the
writing of extracts when reading (p. 41), the thin morning coat
(p. 54).

On the telepathic hypothesis the last of these groups of facts, which
were unknown to both of us, would have to be acquired by the dis-
covery of some existing memory in the far West, after selecting the
right individual from the whole universe of living consciousness, from
whom to obtain the facts while the fourth group might be supposed
to have been obtained either from myself in New York at the time
of the sitting or from the permanent acquisition of all my experience
at the time of my sittings, or from the same sources as the incidents
that were unknown to both of us.

But if we are 'going to admit such a process as this supposes, con-
ceiving it as transcending all limitations of the sort mentioned, and
obtaining access to any desired fact in any mind in the world and at
any moment necessary, we have a hypothesis very difficult to refute.
Its mere magnitude, barring the question of evidence, as against the
finite character of the spiritistic theory, can create distrust and
suspicion. We may well halt before asserting or assuming such an
omniscient power.

But if any one chooses to advance it rather than spiritism we
should find it very difficult to displace such a doctrine, as it is always
difficult or impossible to compete with appeals to the infinite. We may
well ask in reply whether such a conception is not convertible with
pantheism, or that form of monism that conceives all phenomena what-
soever, present, past, and future, as modes of the absolute, a conception
which I must consider as equivalent to spiritism, because we can as
well postulate the continuance of each set of facts in that way as in

Digitized by Google

134

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[part

the form of individualisation usually imagined in the " spiritual body "
or immaterial soul. The real question is whether any given stream of
consciousness can continue or not, and the issue is not its relation, once
existing, to the absolute ; its persistence is just as possible under the
conception of pantheism with its reduction of everything to modes, as
it is under the conception of atomic monism or pluralism which
endeavours to individualise the stream of consciousness in forms of
time and space. But, in so far as the problem of psychical research is
concerned, the metaphysics of survival after death is not a matter of
present interest, but only whether the evidence justifies the supposition
that an individual stream of consciousness once known continues to
persist in other conditions. We need not call it " spirit " at all, if that
term leads to an illusion regarding the facts. We may simply conceive
the present stream as a mode of the infinite, and suppose that mediuniistic
phenomena enable us to communicate with a transcendental stream, as
our ordinary intercourse is a communication with a terrestrial stream.
In both cases we are dealing with modes of the infinite. With
this premise, it should certainly be possible to insist that the facts
acquired by such supposed telepathy involving the defiance of time and
space, and imitating the selectiveness of the infinite, could be most
easily conceived as implying the survival of the absolute's modes under
changed conditions, just as memory represents our present command
of the past.

The best analogy, however, is the one above where we compared
the case to two streams of the same subject, representing the con-
tinuance of both with difficulties in the way of communication between
the transcendental and the terrestrial that do not affect the intercourse
between the two streams in the present life; that is between two
terrestrial streams in different subjects or persons. The analogy can
be further carried out in the chasm that we often find separating com-
munication between the primary and the secondary personality. Now
this infinite telepathy must either be reduced to this conception, or we
have to suppose that Mrs. Piper's brain is the centre and origin of the
whole affair. The latter is an hypothesis which I imagine the physio-
logist is hardly prepared to accept. But the possibility of making the
telepathy required to meet the case convertible with spiritism, in the
only meaning of the term that the facts support, or that has any
practical interest for either science or morals, is a reductio ad absiirdum
of his theory for which the telepathist is probably not prepared. If,
however, it does not mean the substantial identity of spiritism and
omniscient telepathy by their unity in pantheistic monism, it certainly
conceives a representation of the case which pits spiritism against
omniscience. Whatever objections are to be made to such a supposi-
tion, if science has the audacity to make it, they must rise from the

Digitized by

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 135

magnitude of the hypothesis and both its difficulties for the ordinary
scientific imagination and its return to something like first causes for
explanation after preaching for centuries against this procedure.

Were it not for the exceptional character of the coincidences that
suggest telepathy as an explanation of them we might ask a question
that is now forbidden us because the facts are exceptional. Its first
meaning is that of a connection between certain mental states that
demands a causal explanation. If it meant nothing more than the
admission of a causal nexus beyond sensory agency, we might ask for
the evidence of the hypothesis that it is a direct process between the
two brains. Usually even in new theories we only extend some old
hypothesis to cover new phenomena whose relation to the old conception
had not been suspected. Newton's theory of gravitation is an illus-
tration of this. He .only extended the assumed gravity that accounted
for the fall of an apple to the celestial bodies from which it had been
excluded before. Hypotheses non Jingo was the maxim of science and
is still, and new forces are not admissible except in the application of the
Method of Difference. (Mill, Logic, Book III., Chap. VIII., §§ 2 and
3 ; Whewell, Philosophy of Inductive Science, Vol. II., pp. 409-12 ;
Sigwart, Logic, English Translation, Vol. II., pp. 339, 419-20.) It
happens, of course, in the phenomena under survey here that the
evidence for spiritistic claims is the same that has to be adduced for
the enormous extension of telepathy demanded to meet the emergency.
We might then ask for additional evidence for a definite conception
of the telepathic process which is assumed to account for the coin-
cidences suggesting it. This is tantamount to demanding the pre-
existing conception which is extended in covering such phenomena,
and so to asking for evidence of the process assumed as well as for
the coincidences requiring an explanation. But unfortunately we
cannot hastily take this recourse for weakening the claims of
telepathy, as the absolutely exceptional nature of the phenomena
conforms to the requirement of exceptional theories, and both the
general presumptions of physiological science and the exemption of
experimental telepathy from traces of personal identity demand that
we first assume the subject or the percipient as the cause, and
so extend the simpler hypothesis involved in non-spiritistic phenomena
to the wider class, if the extension does not exact more than the
supposition can support. Hence, though it is possible to explain
telepathy either by spiritism or in subordination to it after the existence
of a soul is established, we are reduced by the conception indicated to
another resource for disputing its adequacy. The problem is such that
the very existence of a soul goes with the proof of its survival. That
is to say, we cannot assume that there is any other subject of conscious-
ness than the brain until we have applied the Method of Difference

136

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

and isolated consciousness or personal identity as a fact, from which to
infer the existence of a subject for it other than the brain. Conse-
quently, no presuppositions can be entertained for suggesting a priori
possibilities in the direction of spiritism of some sort, as that theory
would be practically proved by the admission that there is a mental
subject other than the brain. The existence of such a subject once
granted, whether simple or complex, the law of the conservation of
energy would render survival of substance or energy in some form
certain, even if it did not carry the continuity of our personal con-
sciousness with it. But as the proof of this last is the first condition
of assuming the existence of a soul, we are forced to remain by the
functions of the brain until we have to gasp at the magnitude of the
theories that are invented to sustain the case against spiritism.

The most important limitation upon telepathy as a theory is the
question which every scientific man should ask himself, and that is
whether he fully appreciates what it demands of his comprehension. It
is a very easy thing to say " telepathy " when we find a mental coinci-
dence between two persons that cannot be explained by chance or normal
psychological laws. This is not only legitimate, but the only sane
course to take if the premises demand such. But when the facts
accumulate and extend their character until our first supposition begins
to arrogate the attributes of omniscience it becomes suspicious. As a
precaution against hasty conclusions involving matters so important as
a future life, it is as imperative as it is useful. I have always used it,
and shall continue to use it, where the facts imply a supernormal nexus
between the mental states of two different persons but do not reflect
any traces of the personal identity that suggests spiritism. It is the
only safe criterion of the evidence that does not supply spiritistic
implications. But in all cases, and especially when our facts enlarge
the range of the theories we are in the habit of adducing for their
explanation, we are responsible for the logical consequences that attend
those theories. Experimental telepathy has a most decided limitation
to its action. It appears to be confined to the intended fact in the com-
munication, even if the fact be slightly deferred. Spontaneous telepathy
involves the present activity of consciousness. But when we find the
enormously complicated phenomena of personal identity involved, and
every imaginable limitation of space and temporal coincidence tran-
scended with the greatest ease, we must stop to ask what is involved
in our telepathic hypothesis. Scientific method demands this procedure.
No man can escape the necessary deductions from his theories, or the
full interpretation of their meaning in the light of the facts they are
made to cover. (Cf. Jevons, Principles of Science, Chap. XXIII :
Mill, Logic, Book III., Chap. XIV.) This demand is designed to deter-
mine the range of their power, and it stands or falls with its ability or

Digitized by Google

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 137

inability to meet the situation. Hence it is much easier to say tele-
pathy, and thus to create some confusion for spiritism than it is to
supply evidence outside a priori possibilities and the privileges of
scepticism for pretensions of such magnitude as a quasi omniscient
telepathy supposes. But, once postulated, the hypothesis must stand
the test of the following considerations, and be accepted against the
suspicions that they arouse.1

(1 ) There is not one single verifiable incident in the whole seventeen
sittings that belongs to my own personal memory or knowledge alone.
I cannot even except the Maltine incident (p. 418). The incidents
affecting identity are either all common to the memories of myself
and the alleged communicators, or to their memories and that of some
other living person, the latter facts not being known to me at the
time.

I had thought at one time that there was one incident which repre-
sented a decided exception to this assertion, though it appeared to
contain no truth from the standpoint of my knowledge. This was the
incident that I had in mind when I said in an article in the New World
(Vol. VIII., pp. 255-272) that the discrimination in the selection of
incidents " is so perfect that only a few isolated words, not incidents,
can even be suspected of being filched from my personal habits of
thought." I had reference to the " pliilosophical discussions " connected
with the Cooper case in Dr. Hodgson's sittings for me, which, we must
remember, involved my absence two hundred and fifty miles away. But
the discovery afterward, that this Cooper referred to had a wholly distinct
pertinence from that which I imagined it was intended for, completely
removes this suspicion and puts the case in the category of the others.

Such a conception makes the telepathic discrimination and selection
of verifiable incidents one of incredible proportions. The whole
mass of my personal experiences, exclusive of those connected with the
communication, is absolutely ignored, and only those which are common
to the living and the dead are chosen. Still farther, this selective
capacity extends to the discrimination between my memories regarding
many deceased persons that I knew and who do not appear at all, and
memories of a certain group of family acquaintances near and remote.
Even here it omits some tliat I should have expected, and did expect,
to " communicate." The fact that j ustifiedthis expectation was actually
intimated in a few instances, but no definite communications ever came
to satisfy it. Still further yet, the discrimination and selection were

1 Nothing in the discussion of the telepathic hypothesis must be interpreted as
reflecting upon the supposition that the communications are telepathically dispatched
from discarnate spirits. It is only the hypothesis of telepathy between the living
that is here controverted, not as a fact, sporadic or otherwise, but as an adequate
account of such facts as are found in this and other records of the Piper phenomena.

Digitized by Google

138 J. H. Hyslop, PA.Z). [vast

invariable between my own thoughts associated with my memory of the
communicators and the real experiences common with theirs in life. That
is to say, the process has infallible command over the distinction between
the associated connection of my mere thoughts about the communicators
and the same connection of my real experience in common with theirs t
This is a fact that ought to embarrass the believer in telepathy, because
that process in the experimental efforts to test it shows no selectiveness
at all of an independent sort. It is definitely correlated with the
arbitrary selection of the agent. But here we have an intelligent
selectiveness with reference to the illustration of personal identity that
arrogates every function of omniscience within the time allotted to its
action. But now right in contradiction with this infinite discrimina-
tive power occurs the perfectly finite capacity for confusion, error, and
difficulty in getting right these memories about the actual communi-
cators which have been infallibly separated from my own personal
experience associated and unassociated with the communicators ! This
is a kind of discrepancy or weakness that ought not to occur with so
unfailing a power to discriminate between pertinent and impertinent
incidents bearing upon personal identity. Assuming the application of
telepathy, therefore, we have here a capacity absolutely free from
illusion and mnemonic error in discriminating between the individual
and the common incidents and selecting its field of operation, but full
of contradictions, confusions and indistinctness within the limits of the
field chosen for the acquisition of the facts. Why should this infallible
distinction between the right and wrong groups of facts consist with so
finite and fallible a capacity to give the right ones thus circumscribed.

Under the Phinuit regime this peculiarity was not noticeable. In
fact the selection of much that did not show the slightest flavour of
personal identity indicated a graver suspicion in favour of telepathy, as
all that was necessary to account for the phenomena, especially since this
supposition seemed to give a unity to the case which spiritism could not
do without assuming that Phinuit was a discarnate spirit, and that was
a part of the issue to be determined. But whatever theory we may have
to account for the difference between the Phinuit and the Imperator
regime, the fact of this unfailing discrimination of the true from the
false, as between individual and common incidents for personal identity,
and the amazing limitations in the attainment of the relevant within
its own area, after its distinction from the irrelevant, remain an
interesting and puzzling circumstance. This fact of limitation and error
stands in proper conformity with the idea of finite processes with which
science has everywhere else to deal, and so must make us cautious in
supposing something that at least simulates the infinite, which the
telepathy seems to do. There is no evidence and no analogy in
either the physical or the mental sciences outside psychical research,

Digitized by Google

ill] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 139

for any such power, especially when we assume the selectiveness^
exhibited by it. Telepathy simply becomes so large in its pretensions,
if we insist on it, that there is nothing of which we can suppose it
incapable, except perhaps prediction, and even this is excepted only for
lack of the data by which to apply the assumption of telepathy as an
escape from the spiritistic theory.

(2) The objection from the selectiveness of telepathy, once assumed,
applies equally to its short and its long range. But I have not
emphasised the infinity that is implied in the latter conception of it.
Its enormous magnitude becomes much more astounding when we try
to think of the selection it must make between pertinent and
impertinent facts in the memories of living persons at any distance,
after actually hunting them up and discriminating them from all other
living persons, all equally unknown to the percipient. Had we to deal
only with phenomena representing merely the memories of the sitter
and such statements as are false or mere guess work when the
" communications " transcended the memories of the sitter, we should
find telepathy more tolerable (Cf. Proceedings, Vol. VI., pp. 461-462,
569-574; Vol. VIII., pp. 9-16). But when events or facts are
chosen which are true and verifiably independent of the sitter's mind,
the telepathy that would account for this becomes infinitely more
selective and complex than that which is limited to the sitter's mind.
To state it as boldly and clearly as is possible, it involves the power of
the medium, wholly unconscious and not knowing the sitter, as any
condition of establishing rapport at any distance, to select any
absolutely unknown person necessary, anywhere in the world, and from
his memory make the selection of pertinent facts to represent personal
identity, as that selection has been described for the mind of the
sitter ! ! Such a conception is the Nemesis of the credulity which is
usually charged to spiritism. It ought to take far more evidence to
prove this than to justify spiritism, which at least has the merit of
remaining within the sphere of the finite,' while it conforms to known
mental laws in both its strength and its weakness.

Nor will any analogies from wireless telegraphy be applicable here,
in spite of its conception of coherers arranged for particular kinds of
messages. We must remember first that the coherer in wireless tele-
graph t/ i* a prearrange/ i affair for its purpose and is limited to a
particular kind of message. Otherwise there is no success of any kind.
There is absolutely no selectiveness in the coherer, and this supposition
is necessary to the analogy. If the coherer could select any system of
messages sent out into the ether and omit those not pertinent to the
party at its end, the analogy might be urged. But this is precisely
what it does not do and cannot do. We must first know both
ends of the line sufficiently to adjust the coherer to the machine

Digitized by

140

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

sending out the messages, and the whole process is purely mechanical
and absolutely wanting in the intelligent adjustment to the given
situation as in psycliical mediumship. Now in the Piper case there is
no pre-arrangement for rapport of any kind with any special person,
and on the telepathic hypothesis the medium must have the capacity
to be and represent a coherer infinitely better than anything producible
in wireless telegraphy, as she is spontaneously adjustable to any person
in any condition, at any distance, and at any instant. The supposed
process obtains in one part of a sentence a fact from the sitter, and in
the other part of the same sentence mentions a fact unknown to the
sitter and obtained from some one a thousand or ten thousand miles
distant and unknown to the medium (Cf, answer to question about the
cane, p. 494). In addition to all this it is intelligently selective for
the purpose of producing the evidence for proving personal identity,
leaving other matters aside. A man has only to state such a
supposition in order to refute it, and in order to ridicule the
assumed analogy with wireless telegraphy. There is in fact no
resemblance between the two phenomena except their amazing
character, and that is evidently a very poor fact upon which to base
their physical identity.

As a more conclusive objection to both this assumed analogy and
to telepathy itself without that analogy, I may refer to the universal
law of the distribution of energy in. the physical world. This law is
that force varies inversely with the distance ; the ratio may be the
square, cube or other power. This makes it possible to assign definite
limits to the perceptible influence of such forces. Now if telepathy
follows any such laws in its action, it must be classed with heat, light
and magnetism, and so regarded as propagated like them. Otlier-
wise we have a universe of energy at variance with the physical,
which is the point at issue. But if that be once granted the
strongest a jiriori objection to spirits is forever broken down, and
dissent from their possibility is mere quibbling after that. But
if we assume, as we must on physical analogies, that telepathy
conforms to this universal law, we find, in addition to the diffi-
culty of its selectiveness, the circumstance that, in spite of its
decreasing intensity, it passes all minds in its neighbourhood and
chooses the right person at any distance, and the right fact for per-
sonating the desired individual as a spirit. According to all physical
laws, and possibly this is confirmed by experimental telepathy (Pro-
ceedings, Vol. VIII. , pp. 536-596), the nearer subjects ought to receive
the benefit of the greatest intensity, and so to impress the medium, or
to be the sources of her impressions. But this appears not to be the
case. Her facts are selected pertinently to her object without regard
to space limitations, or the laws for the propagation of physical energy.

ill] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena, 141

Nobody seems to have any influence upon her " subliminal " but the
right person in the world, and that person unknown to her. One part
af a sentence is gotten with great difficulty from the sitter's mind, and
the other with ease from some mind at any distance, in spite of the
diminished intensity. Now there is not one iota of evidence for any
such capacity in the whole domain of physical science, and there it
must be found before reducing these phenomena to that explanation ;
nor is there any trace of such a process in the mental world outside
the phenomena of psychical research, and these cannot be invoked
against themselves. Hence, without the slightest trace of the limita-
tions to the propagation of physical energy, telepathy must either be a
process that belongs to an immaterial world, or it is a new physical
force, mode of motion, or what not, that is both an exception to all
known physical facts, and shows an intelligent selectiveness which
baffles all conceptions of mechanical phenomena, while it conforms to
physical facts in the law of propagation. In the former case the
spiritual world is won in some form ; in the latter we have a
mongrel conception which is neither physical nor spiritual, but
a, mere makeshift in words that is without evidence and without
intelligibility.

Were we dealing with the phenomena of apparitions and coin-
cidences of the non-experimental sort, the objection from the analogy of
wireless telegraphy might have more weight. For in these phenomena
we might say that we are not likely to discover, and it might be
impossible to verify, the existence of the coincidences themselves
looking toward telepathy, were it not that the intercourse of friends
reveals them to us. Our complete ignorance of experiences on the part
of other persons that might be coincidental makes those which we
discover through the intercourse of friends appear more selective than
they really are. How do we know, for instance, that in our dreams
and frequent thoughts, or our hallucinations, we are not recipients of
influences from other minds on ours, under conditions in which it is
impossible to determine the source of the impressions ? May we not
have many coincidental experiences, but only occasionally discover
tbem from our intercourse with our friends ? The law of the distribu-
tion of energy may then hold good for telepathy, and we may have less
right to suppose the selective character of apparitions and coincidences
than we are in the habit of taking for granted. All this is purely
speculative and a priori, and is far from being a tolerable belief or
possibility to me, and/l)e8ides, assumes the supernormal to begin with.
I think there are abundant reasons in the nature of apparitions and
coincidences, compared with ordinary dreams and hallucinations, not
to press the hypothesis that the latter are ever coincidental for lack of
the evidence to the contrary, and hence I shall not dwell upon that

142

J. H. Hynlop, PLD.

[part

question. I am anxious only to recognise what a telepathist might
advance in his defence, as against spiritism, in the field of apparitions
and coincidences. It is the argumentum ad ignorantiam which is used
to diminish the importance naturally assigned to spontaneous coinci-
dences and allied phenomena, and which certainly has its weight until
we can show that, even in this field, it is either not applicable at all,
or is so only to a very limited extent But it is far more plausible
than it appears, and while we may grant it all the importance imagin-
able for it in the field mentioned, it completely ignores the circumstance
that no comparison with the Piper phenomena is possible in the case.
The Piper phenomena are experiments, complete in themselves, and
are not spontaneous occurrences. As" experiments they ought to
exhibit that access to the proximate emanations of thought, as in
the physical world, instead of the remote, and should not be selec-
tive at all, if telegraphy after physical analogies is to be the
explanation. But they indicate nothing of the kind, and no argumen-
tum ad ignorantxam prevents our assuming them to be really a*
selective as they appear. Hence the process, if telepathic and under
spacial limitations as to intensity and distribution, nevertheless dis-
regards the whole universe of consciousness, except to select at any
distance and without regard to the known laws of mind the facts that
are pertinent to the supposition of personal identity. This teleological
feature of the process destroys the right of concession to mechanical
analogies in any respect, while the exclusion of proximate influences
upon the results appears to contradict even the supposition or possi-
bility of any resemblance, even of the a priori sort, to the distribution
of physical energy.

(3) Another objection to the telepathic theory is the incompatibility
of the various confusions and mistakes with the enormous power that
must be assumed for its selective nature and its defiance of space
limitations. This argument has two aspects. We may assume that
the subliminal of Mrs. Piper is itself deceived as to the nature and
source of its information, and compare the power implied in its successes
with its limitations implied in its mistakes. On the other hand, we
may assume that this subliminal is not deceived, and that it is an
extremely acute intelligence, capable of understanding its object and
consciously making its selection with reference to its purpose. We
can then compare the mistakes and errors with this assumption of
supernormal intelligence. Taking the first assumption, a power which
only falls short of omniscience in its discriminative, selective, anil
acquisitive action ought not to stumble and become confused at some
simple fact indefinitely less difficult than the hundreds in which it
succeeds. Of course, the reply would be that the " conditions " cause
it, and this must be accorded its a priori weight, for the reason that

Digitized by

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 143

we are really too ignorant of the "conditions" to plead them any
more in defence of spiritism than in defence of telepathy, except as
they are and must be more complicated on spiritistic assumptions. If
the nature of the facts favours that conception of the " conditions "
that must necessarily attend spiritistic phenomena, we may decide the
balance in that direction. Otherwise we are engaging in a priori
speculation on either side. But nevertheless I think there is one fact
that makes the plea more cogent for spiritism than for the alternative
view. It is that the difficulties in the communications exhibit evidences
of a disturbed memory precisely as we should expect to be the case in
the severance of a soul from the organism. We may accord that the
trouble with proper names is as easily explainable on one hypothesis as
on the other, a concession, however, which may be of very doubtful
propriety, and is made only to concentrate the argument upon a more
assured basis. But when the confusion is exactly like that of a person
who has difficulties with his memory, and when it also coincides with
what roust necessarily be assumed on the spiritistic theory, namely,
obstacles to communication of any kind, we find that there is no sug-
gestion of a specifically known cause in the "conditions" bettveen
medium and sitter, but only on the side that conforms to spiritistic
conceptions. Or, perhaps, to put the case in another way, if "con-
ditions " are to figure in the matter, they indicate mental conditions
subsisting rather in the communicator than in the relations between
the sitter and the medium. The telepathic theory must assume that
the "conditions" concerned subsist between two or more brains or
minds, even though it possibly allows for oscillations of power in the
mind or brain of the medium.

There is no trace of such oscillation as affects the issue in the mind
or brain of the sitter, as the whole record shows, and we may well
raise the question whether it is in any respect different with that of
the medium, thus throwing the whole responsibility for difficulties upon
what intervenes between the two brains or minds. But conceding this,
there was, as I was careful to observe at the sittings, no discoverable
trace of a definite correspondence between any real or supposed
oscillations of my thoughts and the observed oscillations and intermit-
tences of Mrs. Piper's subliminal. Both these facts are a presumption
in favour of the spiritistic theory, unless we assume oscillations that we
do not know anything about in the subliminals of both sitter and
medium. But what telepathy cannot easily account for, if we concede
any weakness in the presumption just indicated, is the fact that this
oscillation of the conditions in the mind of the medium, necessary for
good " communication," should so uniformly be avoided in the
phenomena of secondary personality when non-spiritistic or non-
evidential and yet assume the rdle of illustrating, in all its strength

144 J. H. Hyalop, PhD. [pakt

and weakness, the character of a memory independent of the brain or
mind of both sitter and medium when the phenomena purports to be
spiritistic. That is to say, while we can discover some very general
resemblances between the fluctuations of acquisition in experimental
telepathy and the intermittent messages of the Piper record, yet there is
in the latter an intermittence of a very different kind. It is the inter-
mittence of dramatic play and of different personalities, necessitated
perhaps by the obstacles to communication of any sort, if the time is
to be occupied by relevant work at all. But such dramatic intermit-
tence of personality seems to be neither a fact nor a necessity of the
difficulties and fluctuations attending the supposed processes going
on between percipient and agent in experimental, and possibly
spontaneous telepathy. This is a fact in the mixture of truth and
confusion in the communications which telepathy cannot face with
confidence. To do so it has only to still more extend the powers that
have already been stretched beyond the breaking point. (Compare
Proceedings, Vol. XIII., pp. 362-394.)

Taking the second assumption mentioned above, how can the inci-
dents that are false be reconciled with the remarkable power of dis-
crimination and selectiveness that have to be assumed in telepathy in
addition to its defiance of space and temporal coincidence? We have three
types of incidents to deal with : The true, the false, and the indeter-
minate. Whatever judgment we entertain about the indeterminate as
possibly true and accessible to the telepathic hypothesis, we cannot say
this of the false, especially those errors that just miss being true. A
power of such magnitude and assumed acuteness in the discrimination
of the true from the false, in its effort to convince us of the existence of
spirits, ought not thus to contradict itself and forfeit our confidence in
telling what it ought to know is false. The process is fabrication
pure and simple, whether we choose to call it unconscious and irrespon-
sible, or conscious and un veracious. Such action reflects on the
capacity and intelligence of the subliminal, and to that extent creates
suspicion of its ability really to account for the successes by telepathy.
When it comes to disposing of the indeterminate cases, we force tele-
pathy into a dilemma. If the indeterminate incidents are admitted
into the class of the true, we by so much enlarge the evidential facts
beyond my own knowledge and the extent of the telepathy required
to meet the case, giving it instantaneous power over the memories of
widely separated and unrelated parties. On the other hand, if we
class them among the false incidents, we have to assume defective
powers in telepathy that are incompatible with those shown in
obtaining the truth, so that the only theory that is consistent
with the facts is that which assumes the possibility of error in
accordance with what we know both of the difficulties in the way of

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 145

communication and the finite powers of the human mind, especially in
the field of memory.

These general arguments against telepathy may be reinforced
by a few specific instances of mistake. I shall refer here to only a few
of them, as the whole subject comes up in a later topic, and in an
entirely different aspect.

The first interesting illustration is the passage in the sitting for
December 24th (p. 317), in which my uncle shows his curiosity to know
who Dr. Hodgson is. On the telepathic theory there should be no
difficulty in this. Dr. Hodgson ought to be known by this time by
both the supraliminal and the subliminal of Mrs. Piper. In fact both
G. P. and Rector recognise him without failure on all other occa-
sions. But here they must be supposed either to be ignorant of him or
to be intelligent enough to simulate the actual facts of the case, so as
to make their spiritistic claims more cogent, and thus contradict the
uniform consistency of their character as honest personalities. That
supposition requires us to add a rather amazing hypothesis to telepathy
in order to use the latter at all.

Again, take the complicated passage in the communications of my
cousin, Robert McClellan (p. 422). He had evidently tried to give
the name of his wife, Lucy McClellan, and some incident with it, but
had to leave before he succeeded, and Rector told him to "go out and
come in with it again," and then explained to me that my cousin had
said something about Lucy, also remarking, against all excuse from
telepathy except to make it "magnitude incompatible with its
error, that this message was not for Miss Edmunds, who is Dr.
Hodgson's assistant secretary, and whose name is Lucy. In a few
minutes, responding to Dr. Hodgson's request to state explicitly who
this Lucy was, Rector said that my father and sisters had brought her
here several times, thus implying that she was a would-be communi-
cator. Now the facts are : (1) That the person who was alleged
to have been brought several times by my father and sister to com-
municate was my aunt, if we can assume that it was any relevant
person at all ; (2) that I knew perfectly well what " Lucy " was meant,
and only wanted the surname given for completeness ; (3) that this Lucy
is still living. In the face of such facts telepathy is in inextricable
confusion and contradiction.

A similar mistake is committed in regard to this name in one of my
brother's communications. He had to leave just as he succeeded in
giving the name Lucy (p. 465), and Rector, evidently remembering
that Dr. Hodgson had asked for explicit information regarding the
name, said at once, " I got it all but the Hyslop." This was perfectly
absurd from my standpoint, but quite natural and excusable for
Rector. The facts are : (1) that there is not and never was such a

Digitized by Gocfole

146

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

person as Lucy Hyslop ; (2) that my brother was trying to say Lucy
McClellan, the name of the wife of Robert McClellan, her deceased
husband, and one of the communicators. Both the name of this Lucy
McClellan and the fact that she is still living were in my mind and
memory all the while, so that there is no excuse for telepathy in the
case. A finite spirit might commit such an error in interpretation,
especially as my brother had a few moments previously mentioned my
sister Lida.

(4) There is another difficulty which I cannot but regard as a
most serious objection to the telepathic hypothesis. It is the differ-
ence between communicators in the matter of clearness while the
data in my mind from which telepathy is supposed to draw are the
same for all. (Compare Proceedings, Vol. XIII., p. 362.) My father,
my brother, my sister and my uncle James McClellan were clear
communicators, but my cousin Robert McClellan and my uncle James
Carruthers were exceedingly confused. The data in my memory exist
there in the same way for all of them, to say nothing of the incidents
not there at all, but in the memories of persons at a distance. But a
faculty that ignores all distinctions between the supraliminal and the
subliminal, between what is recognised when recalled, and what is
wholly forgotten and unrecognised when recalled, and between the
known and the unknown to the sitter, can plead no extenuations
in behalf of limitations determined by any known differences of
temperament or feeling in regard to the different communicators. We
cannot plead any social habits and affections. But if we could plead
them it would make no difference, as the uncle with whom I
had spent so many delightful hours in conversation on all sorts of
subjects does not give me a word and does not appear at all. Nothing
is obtained but a statement by my father implying his death.1 Also
•ny mother, endeared to me by affections and memories that have

1 1 refer to several allusion** in which the death of this uncle, the husband of my
aunt Nannie, was implied, but not stated. On December 24th (p. 316), just after my
uncle Carruthers had communicated, father said, 14 1 wish you would tell the girls
that I am with them in sorrow or joy. What is their loss is our gain." The use of
the plural in both the noun and the pronouns, the word "sorrow/' and the connection
of the message with the aunt Eliza who had just lost her husband, indicates a
probable reference to my aunt Nannie's bereavement. Were it not for the probability
that the name 44 Mannie," in the sitting of December 27th (p. 342), more probably
refers to my stepmother than to my aunt Nannie, I might suppose a similar reference
to this aunt's loss in the sentence, 44 Tell them to trust in God always." But the
exclusive reference to aunt Eliza in the promise of comfort in her sorrow makes the
interpretation doubtful. Then at the sitting of June 1st, in response to my question
put to father, whether he had seen anyone in whom aunt Nannie was interested, the
reply came: 44 Yes, I intend telling you about him before I get through, James."
But not a word came during the next four sittings, though he died four weeks
previous to my uncle Carruthers, and I was actually prodding Mrs. Pipers' s
subliminal both telepathically and by direct suggestion.

xn.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 147

affected my whole life, communicates so little that it is not worth
while to give her a separate place in the summary of facts. On the
other hand, my cousin, with whom I had far less to do, and between
whom and myself only one letter ever passed, is a frequent though not a
clear communicator. And my uncle James McClellan, about whom I
knew very little, though always fond of him, especially for the chance
to see the cars when we visited him, told me mostly things that were
true and yet unknown to me. Scarcely anything of evidential note
existed in my memory, or in that of any living person, regarding my
brother Charles and my sister Annie, and yet they were among the
clearest communicators from the start, and what they communicated in
many instances was not associated with them in my memory. This
difference, therefore, between communicators is precisely what might
be expected from the existence of a personal equation in a discarnate
spirit affecting its ability to communicate, an equation that has abso-
lutely no evidence for its equivalent in the memory of the sitter. On
the contrary, the evidence is strongly against its supposition in the
facts mentioned above.

(o) There is another objection to telepathy independently of the
question regarding its magnitude. It is the peculiar inconstancy of the
communications, and the changes from one communicator to another,
representing, apparently at least, the existence of conditions which
might more naturally produce aberration in spiritistic than in telepathic
messages. We can see no natural reason for the interruptions and
changes of *' communicators " on the telepathic hypothesis, or for the
confusions and alleged explanations of them by the conditions of com-
munication at all, if spiritism is not true. From what we have seen
<>f experimental telepathy it is not accompanied by any such fluctua-
tions of ability to communicate by the agent, or to receive information
by the percipient in simulation of spiritistic realism, as are marked in
the short intervals of communication from a given person through Mrs.
Piper. There is just enough of failure and confusion, rise and lapse of
telepathic access, in ordinary experiments, to suggest that perhaps if
we knew more about it we might discover the same phenomena in it as
in the case under our study. But at present there is not the slightest
clear resemblance, except in the general fact of fluctuation, between the
inconstancies and changes of communicators in the Piper case, and what
might be called variations in experimental telepathy. There is nothing
in the conditions of incarnate life, so far as we know it, to favor an
intermittent character for telepathic acquisition. Of course we have to
recognise that the argumentum ad ignorantiam, at least in general, favours
telepathy as much as spiritism, because we know nothing more empiri-
cally of the conditions for one of them than for the other. But I think
everyone will admit the greater probability at least, if not the certainty,

148

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

that the conditions of communication from the dead in a transcendental
world would more naturally exhibit difficulties and the necessity for
intermittent messages than the conditions of telepatluc communication
between the living. The reason is apparent, and that is that on such
a supposition we should have one more world, and its complications to
reckon with, than in telepathy. This ought to be self-evident, were it
not for our ignorance of telepathic conditions, on the one hand, and for
just enough of what may be called inconstancy in them on the other, to
suggest the utmost caution in declaring with any haste or confidence
that there is a qualitative difference between the Piper case and experi-
mental telepathy. The supposition of their essential difference may
turn out false under further study, but it consists much more with what
we know and must necessarily expect from the physiological point of
view of the disturbing effects of death, assuming the existence of a
soul, than with what we should expect from secondary personality and
telepathic access. Until this distinction is removed the probability
that intermittent messages are more consistent with spiritism than
with telepathy must remain.

The cogency of the argument from inconstancy is just this. By
supposition telepathy cannot sustain its acquisition continuously, but
must be conditioned by something like the limitations to continuous
action that are claimed for spirits. But when we look at the facts it is
but a change of communicator and not a change in the telepathic
access. If the telepathy can be continuous it is absurd to alternate
the communicators. The facts of continuous access to the sitters' or
others' knowledge is sufficient proof that telepathy cannot claim the
immunities that go to the supposition of spirits without first showing
that the limitations exhibited are due to something else than the
mere fact of telepathic action.

There is also an important concurrent fact in our favour which
confirms the position here taken, and it is ostensibly connected with
spiritistic phenomena independently of the Piper instance. This fact
is that the large number of apparitions purporting to be phantasms of
the dead show no tendency on the part of the supposed spirit to remain
long under " material " conditions. They are quite uniformly represented
as vanishing in a short time. Whatever the explanation of them
they have this very singular and perhaps significant resemblance to the
intermittent and brief communications in the Piper phenomena, the
manifestations in her case varying with circumstances and conditions
having no apparent relation to any known " material " causes, and
about which we are hardly entitled yet even to speculate. But the
resemblance in this one particular between the experimental and the
spontaneous phenomena which assume the aspect of spiritism is at least
to be remarked as indicating their consistency, and in each case it

XU-] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.

149

seems to present greater difficulties for the telepathic than for the
alternative theory, if we are to admit that the conditions are more
complicated in the one than in the other.

(6) There is another strong objection to the telepathic hypothesis.
It is the inconsistency between the hypothesis assumed to account for
the difficulties of the telepathic access, and the fact that this access is
just as often easy and prompt, exhibiting all the readiness and perti-
nence of ordinary conversation. In nearly all the sittings I remained
passive, and avoided asking questions as far as possible, in order, first,
to prevent any influence from suggestion upon the facts given, and,
secondly, to allow the communicator to tell his own story, which we
have learned is a way to prevent confusion until experience on the part
of the communicator facilitates ready messages. When I asked questions
the communicator was usually allowed to answer them at his pleasure,
to choose whether he should do it at once or at a later time. This
method avoided confusion and suggestion at one stroke. But the facts
given under such circumstances are more likely to be explained by tele-
pathy, on the ground that the medium has to take time and effort to pick
out the right facts in my memory. In this way the confusion may be in-
terpreted as a device of the subliminal to gain time. This supposition, of
course, is purely a priori. But if in extremity it is advanced we have
to meet it. Consequently, I propose a formidable difficulty to this
way of looking at the matter, especially after having assumed
such enormous powers as we found necessary if telepathy be our
resource. If, therefore, you can get the communicator clear enough
to carry on a tete-a-tete conversation involving either an exemption
from confusion or an immediate answer to your questions, a double
object is gained. First, you are drawing, or seem to be drawing,
upon a fund of knowledge that is not left to itself to work its way
into expression, but is started in the natural channel of an independent
memory by an appreciative mind, and, second, you show that confusion
is not necessary to the selective process, but is a mere incident of
the conditions that render communication difficult. Thus you do
not conceive the problem as one of fishing about in the sitter's memory
with pains and effort for the right facts, but as the spontaneous recol-
lection of another subject, as in ordinary intercourse. Hence, if you
still resort to telepathy, you have to reverse your judgment of the limi-
tations assumed to account for the hesitating answers to inquiries, an
assumption made in contradiction with enormous powers supposed for
other purposes, and thus we should have to conceive it as capable of
the immediate acquisition of the facts. Thus there would be no
excuse for the theory of confusion, and the necessity of arbitrary
selection of the incidents from the oscillating processes of mental action
and memory, whatever such imaginary processes are.

150

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Now my last sitting especially illustrates this view of the ease. It
is a perfect type of telephonic conversation. I suggested topics about
which to talk or to send messages, and the responses, representing often
pertinent incidents of a very special character and wholly outside my
memory and knowledge and comprehending every shade of complexity,
indicate such action as would impose a still greater strain upon
telepathy. The play of an independent mind so distinctly imitated is
very far removed from the notion of a subliminal, either self -deceived
or intentionally deceiving others, fishing around under difficulties for
facts. In reality the difficulties in communication, under the stress
of the consciousness that the communicator was enjoying his last
opportunity for some time, were apparently far lass than before, and
the conversation was almost without a break, the interest being
heightened by my resolution to break the long silence that I had
maintained. This being the case we cannot apologise for telepathy on
the ground of impeded acquisition, but have to assume powers in it
which make its mistakes and limitations appear absurd and inconsistent
One can understand from ordinary psychology why a man endeavouring
to communicate at a telephone under great difficulties should halt at
the irresponsiveness of the man at the other end. But if the receiver
does enough to stimulate attention and interest at the communicators
end, the difficulties would be less embarrassing, and the intercourse less
arbitrary except as the receiver made it so. This describes in telephonic
phraseology and ordinary psychology just what took place in my last
sitting. This difference between sittings without questions or suggestion
of topics, and those conducted on the plan of mutual conversation is a
very important fact in determining the range of power which must be
attributed to telepathy in order to meet the case, since it is exactly the
same kind of fact which we meet in actual life, while the extensive
powers assumed for telepathy are not what we observe in actual life.
It brings into clear light the incompatibility of such a power with the
mistakes and confusion observed, while the spiritistic theory, on any
principle of continuity and on the assumption of the known powers
and limitations of the human mind, reveals no difficulties in the case
that are not naturally explainable in a perfectly rational way, even
if a little a priori and defective in evidence of the conditions that it
has to assume on the "other side." The mind of the communicator
being finite and admittedly liable to errors, and not requiring anything
more remarkable or miraculous than the ordinary processes of con-
sciousness, would most perfectly consist with any amount of confusion
and error.

(7) There is another important objection to telepathy. If there
be any supposition whatever that is necessary for that hypothesis to
make, it is that the point de repere for the telepathic acquisition from

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 151

living consciousness, and for the application of its omniscient selection,
must be the name or memory of the person who is to be represented as
communicator, so that it can appropriate all the associates with
that name and personality, though it actually discriminates against the
mere thought of the subject about the person represented. Telepathy
has to have some rational power of discrimination and selection in
order to effect its simulation of personal identity. The only plausible
supposition within the range of known psychology for this cue to work
on is that it is the name or the sitter's memory of the person to be
represented. But this assumption is completely wrecked on the fact
of intermediaries that have no associations whatever in the memory
of the sitter with the incidents selected and sent to prove the identity
of some one else. This was a special characteristic of the communica-
tions by my brother and sister, and occasionally by my father.
Rector in a few incidents acted the part of intermediary, and so also
did G. P.

(8) Another point may be made against telepathy in its failure to
utilise its opportunities for producing more than it does from the
memories of distant and unknown persons. If telepathy be the
process explaining the phenomena, and if it has transcended the
knowledge of the sitter in the instances mentioned, it can in-
stantaneously select any person in the world that it pleases and
from that person select with perfect discrimination the one fact
needed to complete a message obtained only in part from the sitter.
Knowledge of this kind, or, whether we speak of it as knowledge or
not, a process with this power, ought to be able as easily to dispense
with the memory of the sitter altogether, as presumably on this theory
was the case in Dr. Hodgson's sittings while I remained in New York,
and to make out its communications from any number of persons not
present and thus avoid suspicion for its weakness. But in no case
while I was present did it appear to consciously and regularly
simulate any such powers. The point de repere for association
was, not the sitter's natural expectations or point of view, but
the natural interest of the communicator in the incidents that
pertained to his memory of the individuals to whom he wished to
identify himself. This is the natural law of association. When A.
meets B. his recollection and conversation take the direction, not of
his intimate life with C, but of what pertains to B. Meeting D. it
will be different from both B. and C. These three persons would in
some way have to be connected in their experiences in order to have
any natural play of association about them when one of them is in mind.
If C. never knew B. he is not likely to be thought of when A. who knows
C. talks with B. Now telepathy would have to be intelligent enough
to discover this peculiarity in ordinary mental operations and imitf

152

J. H. Hyslop, PfuD.

[part

it here in the selection of the persons and incidents at a distance in|
order to avoid doing what I have said ought to be expected of
immense a power. While it is playing the rdle of the infinite in the|
simulation of personal identity by its correct selection of the point
repere in relation to the sitter, why does it not keep up this rdle in a
way to defeat the objections, which it should know can be and arq
raised against spiritism in the choice of most of its messages from tht|
mind of the sitter 1 It could as easily reproduce personal identity
access to distant minds as by relying so generally on that of the sitter, and
at the same time escape the accusation made against it. But in spite of its
supposed power to defy space and temporal coincidence it goes just faii
enough to show that it contradicts its reputation for infinite capacities
by assuming the limitations of spiritism. It can discriminate with
infinite shrewdness for its purpose in the treatment of the sitter^
mind, but is not astute enough to play the game in reading distant
minds which would tend more to acquit it of the suspicions thafl
hamper its effort to prove spiritism ! If, while it is rummaging with
instantaneous precision about the whole universe of consciousness, it
would only show its ability to disregard the sitter's mind altogether
and reproduce personal identity without reference to the principle of
finite association and the point de repere most natural to a human
spirit, we could accord the process the right to suggest greater diffi-
culties than it does. But it is precisely the extent to which it actually
fulfils the conditions of the spiritistic doctrines in all its multitudinous
and detailed complexity that deprives it of its controversial rights. It
imitates spiritism in the reproduction of personal identity, but its
action is such a fast and loose* playing between finite and infinite
powers that no one can tell whether it is entitled to respect for
one or the other. J ust when it seems to be proving its immensity it
shows such limitations that its pretensions break down, simply because
it stops short in its acquisitions from distant minds at the point which
enables spiritism to account for the arbitrary limitation of the pro-
cess, which is not arbitrary at all if we are dealing with discarnate
consciousness.

(9) Another consideration, also, that will have to be accepted under
the telepathic hypothesis is the fact that telepathy is only one of the
processes that must be combined in order to account for the phenomenon
as a whole. This function is a mere adjunct to other powers quite as
extraordinary as itself. That is to say, as against the single hypothesis
of spiritism, telepathy has to be combined with various other assump-
tions to account for the facts. There must be assumed an original his
trionic capacity, joined with a fiendish ingenuity at deception, whether
conscious or unconscious, for giving personal form to the facts tele-
pathically acquired, a form completely imitating the synthetic activity

Digitized by Google

Djl] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 153

md intelligence independent of the brain from which the information
n presumably obtained, and apparently independent of the brain by
rbich it is expressed. The main features of this dramatic play of
ersonality will be considered again in detail when I can urge its
wwtive meaning for the alternative theory. But it may be alluded to
»are for the sake of indicating that there is nothing in the passive
mess o€ experimental telepathy (Cf. references on p. 1 26) to favour or
o*tify such a supposition as this wholesale power to convert telepathic
icquisitions into the perfect simulation of independent personalities.
Sven in hypnosis the subject seems to be wholly, or at least almost
wholly, the instrument of foreign suggestion, and though the
tecoocL&ry personality may display the original action of the subject's
Enind in response to some suggestion, to make a speech for instance, it
yet exhibits no trace of a tendency to appropriate the thoughts of
others present, but draws upon its own resources and very gener-
ally, if not always, shows some of the limitations in language or
range of thought characteristic of the primary personality. The
histrionic power of hypnosis, even when it represents the spontaneous
activity of the subject, is still too mechanical to compare it hastily to
the phenomena of the Piper case. On the other hand, in the experi-
ments in telepathy, upon which we have largely to rely for our
conception of the nature and range of the process, there seems to
be no trace of this tendency to dramatic imitation of any other per-
sonality than that of the percipient himself. Hence when we are
applying telepathy to the explanation of the Piper case we are obliged
to discard the conception of a merely passive access to the knowledge
<* others, present or absent, and to conceive the process as combining
with it the independent synthetic and organising action of the
medium s brain or mind in completely reproducing the personality
<& another being than itself, not in external appearance, of course, as
that term is too often understood, but in terms of the states of con-
sciousness wldch the alleged communicator can be proved to have had.
Add to this also the amazing amount of auto-deception as well as
hetero-deception that is involved, though it be all unconscious, or even
the honest opinion of the medium's subliminal, and extend this
supposition to the whole census of apparitions representing phan-
tasms of the dead so as to include the subliminals of all other
persons, and we have put a dangerously infernal agency at the very
bottom of things from which it is impossible to recover any morality
at all !

The mere statement of such suppositions would be sufficient to
refute them were it not a fact that some of the phenomena of secondary
personality show, to some extent at least, both this ingeniously original
power of constructive mental action and the tendency to some form

Digitized by

154

J. H. Hydop, PLD.

[PAB1

and amount of deception, which two facts seem to defy alike the ordi-
nary canons of morality and the objections to the limitation of the
telepathic access to merely passive attainments. (C/., "Case of
Le Baron," Proceedings, Vol. XII., pp. 277-297 ; VoL XV., pp
466-483 ; also the Newnham case, Vol. III., pp. 8-24 ; Studies in
Psychology \ University of Iowa, Vol. II., Some Peculiarities of Secondatrti
Personality, by Professor G. T. W. Patrick ; Psychology of Suggestion,
by Boris Sidis, pp. 245-268, et al.) These are sufficient to show th«
recognition of a fact that prevents us from wholly denying histrionic
capacity and deception in secondary personality. But we must noi
forget that secondary personality is complicated with suggestion iii
these cases, or in most of them, so that the responsibility for histrionic
appearance may have to be shared, in part at least, by the operator
Besides, both the deception and the histrionic play show the inconsds
tencies of mechanical phenomena, and in this respect indicate almost
a complete contrast to the Piper phenomena, to say nothing of th<
general qualitative and quantitative difference between her case anrl
those admitted to suggest difficulties. There are no such limitation)
in it as in the cases quoted. It has a complete semblance to realiti
which the others do not have, and they on account of that defeel
betray their spurious nature.

These general objections to telepathy could be multiplied bj
the mention of several which are positive arguments for spiritism
But these will come in their place. Minor points could also tx
considered, but I shall leave their development to the reader aftei
mentioning some of them in a few sentences. First there is th<
curious fact that time relations, as we understand them, seem to b
obliterated, which ought not to be the case with omniscient telepathy
If the subliminal has so accurate a knowledge of time relations as th<
experiments of Professor Delboeuf and Dr. Milne Bramwell would seen
to imply (Proceedings, Vol. VIII., pp. 414-421, 605 ; Vol. XII., pp
179-192), and if telepathy have half the power that is attributed U
it, why cannot it obtain, occasionally at least, from the memory of th*
sitter specific dates quite as easily as tricks of phraseology 1 Why is it
that the subliminal appreciates nothing but a before and after, ot
the most general relations of time ? We should expect this on the
spiritistic theory, if Kant's doctrine of space and time be true. Then
there is another consistent habit of the communicator in breaking over
the line and occasionally making relevant remarks about conversations
and conditions of life on the other side that telepathy cannot reach
without admitting spiritism and that secondary personality cannot
reproduce without forfeiting its claim to superior intelligence, if the
statements exhibit those intrinsic absurdities by which secondary

Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 155

personality so uniformly betrays itself and its limitations. Then,
a.<rain, what are we going to do with Imperator's prayers when we
c-onsider the religious condition of some of the sitters? My early
childhood, of course, leaves my subliminal accessible for recollections of
this sort, and so does much of my later experience. But then these
|>etitions are not even pretended to be messages to me from any one
and so are a piece of supererogatory display, so far as the main purpose
is concerned.

On the other hand, there is a class of phenomena in this record,
quite frequent also in other Piper records, that affords a peculiarly
effective argument against telepathy and its adjuncts, represented
either as like ordinary secondary personality or as variously deceived
and deceiving. These phenomena are the communications about
persons and things not relevant to the sitter at all, but for some of
which there could have been as much excuse for referring them to me
as in the case of the lady claiming to be my mother in the sitting
of December 23rd (p. 308) where the facts were all false. I shall
enumerate these incidents briefly with references, and leave the detailed
study of them to the reader.

The first interesting case of this is the communication on
December 24th, regarding a little girl who was said to be looking for
her mother (p. 319). The girl's name as Margaret Ruth was
given, and the opinion ventured that it was possibly the child of Dr.
Hodgson's sister. On December 26th Rector said spontaneously, and
without query from Dr. Hodgson, that this little child was not his
sister's (p. 330).

O. P.'s allusion to some affairs of his brother Charles in my first
sitting, December 23rd (p. 305), is somewhat similar to this about the
little girL But his messages about John Hart and Dr. Meredith, May
3 1st (p. 440), are especially good instances of irrelevancy to me and
apparently of G. P.'s knowledge of the fact. No less important for
the same view are the trance personalities' specific communications and
arrangements regarding persons concerned in experiments and sittings
not connected with my own. All these are given in the natural
manner of reality, and free from the confusion of messages that come
from those in my family (Cf. pp. 222-238).

In these cases the trance personalities are perfectly conscious of the
irrelevancy of the messages to me. Compare also the reference to
Miss Edmunds (p. 442). Why are they not equally conscious of the
falsity and irrelevance in other cases ? The only answer to this question
that can sustain any consistency with itself is either that their intelli-
gence is so infinite that it can produce just the proper appearance of the
finite which we wish to use in favour of spiritism, or that it is not so
ropernatural as the necessity of using it in the successes for escape f vots>

156

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[part

spiritism would imply. That they should be all unconscious might be
applicable to the discrepancies between the successes and failures, but
that they should thus be conscious of the irrelevancies and consciously
honest at points where they would have as much or more excuse, on the
supposition of acute knowledge, for the deceit that must be supposed
elsewhere, is incompatible with the assumption that they can play
any consistent rdle in their game. Supposing them finite, limited and
honest in their knowledge, as they certainly appear superficially, both
accounts for the character of the phenomena, and distinguishes them
from such secondary personalities as exhibit no proper traces of
spiritistic zeal and consistency.

To summarise the argument : If we are to suppose telepathy and
its adjuncts as the explanation of these phenomena the theory must be
held to cover the following facts with all their suggested difficulties.
There is first the wonderful selectiveness shown in its unfailing dis-
crimination between my own personal experiences alone and the
experiences that were common to me and the supposed communicator.
Then there is the far wider discriminative selection from all living
memories of the facts pertinent to the identity of the person re-
presented. The inconstancy of the communications and the dramatic
intermittence of different communicators, facts quite natural to the
necessary difficulties of communication itself. There are also various
inconsistencies and unnecessary complications on the telepathic theory :
First between the occurrence of confusion and mistake on the one hand,
and the remarkable telepathic power on the other, that must be assumed
to account for the successes ; between the usual point de repere, which is
the proper personality connected with the incidents communicated, and
the use of intermediaries ; between the successes of some communicators
and the uniform failure of others, though the facts in the memory oi
the sitter and other living persons are the same for all of them ; and
between its range of assumed power over all living memories and it«
limitation usually to what would be the natural law of association a*
exhibited in the recall of reminiscences in conversation. Lastly, there
is the self-conscious communication of irrelevant matter, recognised as
irrelevant, and thus made incompatible, not only with its action in
what is false, but also with its apparent omniscience at deception in
other respects. Such a power to imitate just what we should expect oi
a finite intelligence acting under such limitations as must be supposed
on the spiritistic hypothesis is a very large one. I do not say that such
a supposition is impossible, as I am aware that some prefer to protect
their scepticism by leaning that way. Dr. Hodgson has stated this
supposition which some may prefer to hold when conceiving that Mrs
Piper's mind, or brain as the case may be, both in its normal and super
normal conditions, is in constant relation to the supraliminal and

Digitized by Google

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 157

subliminal knowledge of all living persons, and perhaps to some facts once
in a living mind or brain, but not longer so, and gotten by some process
of clairvoyance from the ether or impressions on matter. (Proceedings,
Vol. XIII., pp. 393-396.) This theory is at least as large as the
spiritistic ! I mention it only to call attention to the fact. But I may
add that if we are asked to produce a second Piper case before the
spiritistic interpretation shall become respectable, is it not equally
necessary to produce a second case of this rare combination of theories
before feeling any assurance regarding their application ? Moreover,
would it not be as easy to account for a second case on this theory, as
it is to account for the one in hand ?

Digitized by

158

J. H. Hi/slop, Ph.D.

[part

CHAPTER IV.

Thk Spiritistic Hypothesis.

All that has been said in depreciation of the telepathic theory is
t>o much presumption in favour of spiritism, if we assume that we have
only two alternatives with which to deal. But in addition to these
negative arguments there are several positive ones. I shall first
summarise them and then discuss them at length. They are : ( 1 )
The unity of consciousness exhibited by the communicators, or the
satisfaction of the criterion for personal identity. (2) The dramatic
play of personality. (3) The mistakes and confusions. (4) Certain
mechanical and coincidental features in the automatic writing of the
medium.

(1) Tht Unity of Consciousness and Personal Identity.

In regard to the first of these considerations, I can even demand
the assent that the facts in this record perfectly satisfy the criterion
for personal identity on any theory whatsoever. It is not necessary to
assume the spiritistic theory in order to understand the pertinence
of the facts to the question of their original source. The difference
bttwutn thp theories of fraud and spiritism consists in the mere
question Whether the facts have been artificially acquired, or whether
bhej are the result of supernormal acquisition from spirits. The
»ouro<i of the facts in the mind of the person whom they purport to
repn?Nt*ril cannot be disputed without impeaching the veracity of the
|H<rum.>4 atti ruling their truth, and hence the only question is that which
iogaH,4 i lu< method of obtaining them. The testimony to personal
identity ivmaina the same in any case. That is to say, the facts
rapn^cnt, tho personal experiences and consciousness of the individual
ttijin whom thftj purport to come. But having recognised this circum-
stance, it will be easy to realise their spiritistic import after being
OOtii inceJ that fraud is to be thrown out of account.

Eq nrdinury life the criterion of personal identity is complicated
rt^ith physical phenomena, upon which we usually rely, but which are
in i tuifc not the final test of it. But in the problem before us all the
tits upon which we rely in a sensible world for at least the first
ion of personal identity are wanting in the determination of the
t in an assumed discarnate spirit. No material or sensible

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 159

data are accessible. Our criterion must be facts that force the supposi-
tion of the unity of consciousness between the past and present
existence of the alleged communicator. The incidents communicated,
their psychological connection, their emotional interest or pertinence
to the person they claim to represent, and the general manner of their
expression ought to indicate that unity of character which we should
recognise in the person given, or by which in daily life we should
instantly recognise their proper subject and source. This conception
of the case is represented in my experiments on the " Identification of
Personality," where the incidents chosen from the memory of a common
life achieve their purpose in a very short time, and represent just what
we find in the Piper phenomena minus the supernormal (pp. 537-623).
In this record of my Piper experiments, however, it is unfortunate
that the general reader is less qualified than myself for appreciating
this unity, because he does not know as well as I the pertinence of
the facts, and has to use his imagination more than I have to do.
But the notes in which I have given the facts from my own knowledge,
instead of my opinion as to the conformity of the messages to my
knowledge, ought to give a sufficiently clear conception of this per-
tinence and so to make this exposition of their unity quite intelligible.
It is sufficient to remark then that the true facts in the entire
record, representing experiences that are demonstrably not the original
experience* of Mrs. Piper, will be intelligible enough to the majority
of men for them to understand their unity and spiritistic suggestive-
ness, no matter what theory they prefer. Hence I shall not resort to
any lengthy process of explanation at this point as to what personal
identity is in any metaphysical sense. I shall be content with the
simple view that it is a stream of consciousness that is aware of the
past and that can, under the proper conditions present facts which the
sitter can verify and cannot conceive to have been the experience of
any one else. In presenting the argument, I shall call special attention
to the facts that illustrate the case and indicate their cogency.

We must remark, however, that the problem has gotten far beyond
physiology. Only the psychologist can any longer deal with the com-
plexities and significance of the Piper phenomena We are dealing
with an intelligent unity in phenomena in which we art either unaware
of the conditions affecting them, or must assume them to be abnormal
and yet capable of reproducing the psychological facts of a normal
unity. To assume that the brain conditions are normal is to cut out
by the roots any view but the spiritistic. To assume that the brain
conditions are abnormal, we have to contend with the fact that there
is no irregularity in the mental phenomena of the subject corresponding
to the disintegration of personality as observed in insanity and
secondary personality generally, but a reproduction of the normal

160

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

personality of some one else. Hence the problem is wholly removed from
the sphere of physiology, and it is left to psychology to deal with
the significant unity of phenomena that require to be explained by
some other process than anything with which physiology is acquainted.
The problem is not one of any known brain conditions, but of the
psychological unity of mental phenomena that must be referred to
wholly unknown physiological laws and conditions, or to hypotheses
consistent with the known laws of consciousness, namely, a subject
unity like that which we know in actual life and consistent with the
finite suppositions with which science is accustomed to deal. So far as
the present knowledge of physiology affords any evidence the subject
unity may not be anything else than the individual's brain, unless we
insist that the inconvertibility of consciousness with its physical con-
ditions forces us to suppose a subject other than the brain, a view
which I do not feel compelled to take, though I admit the possibilities
of it. But in all the cases of ordinary life, whether the personality be
primary or secondary, the connection between the two streams is such as
to preclude any attempt to treat the one as reproduction of the personal
identity of another individual. The unity between the two is the fact
that forbids this. But when the phenomena have a psychological unity
that represents both another's personal identity, and this of one not
living, we have to recognise that our problem is not physiological, or
not physiological alone, but first psychological, in the determination of
the nature and the unity of the facts independently of the brain of
the medium, so far as any known physiological laws are concerned ; so
that the contest must be between a synthetic unity reproducing the
personal identity of an unknown individual not living, and the
capacities of secondary personality with its universally recognised
limitations in the field of physiology. Consequently, I shall examine
in the concrete the incidents of the present record and exhibit their
complex unity in terms of what we know of memory and consciousness
in psychology and then merely ask if we have any analogies in
psychiatry and its physiological assumptions and disintegrating
personality to suggest any rational way out of spiritism as a legitimate
hypothesis.

Let me take first the confused passage in which my father described
all tin1 incidents that took place at his death (p. 327) I take a con-
fused case at the outset purposely. My notes show that there is
nut lie tent correspondence between his statements and the facts for as
to recognise that the circumstances precluded chance as their explana-
The exclusion of chance suggests intelligence, if only that of
But as this alternative has been excluded, the incidents
saent just the unity which we should expect of the alleged subject
mvd to have survived.

Digitized by

Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 161

But there are two incidents in the group that are of special interest
in the consideration of their psychological unity for any other view
than the spiritistic. The first of these is the reference to congestion,
in the question, "Was it congestion, James?" I saw, the moment I
recognised the pertinence of this allusion to congestion, that I had an
opportunity to test the telepathic hypothesis, assuming that I was not
to admit chance in this one particular ; for I supposed that my father
never knew that congestion took place in his spasms of the larynx.
Hence I wrote to the physician who attended him in his last illness,
without telling him any facts in the case, to know if he had ever told
iny father of his congestion, or said it in his hearing, and the emphatic
reply was in the affirmative (Cf. p. 356). Here I could not get the
unity of telepathy as the only alternative in the explanation. The
facts represented a wider unity of consciousness than I had supposed
and were just what the spiritistic theory requires. The second fact is
the appreciation of my question in a wholly different sense from the
one I had intended, and yet in the more natural interpretation which
it bore. I had asked "What was the trouble when you passed out?"
I had in mind the disease which my father thought he had, and as
my word " trouble " was strictly incorrect, the reply surprised me, as
supposing that my question referred to some personal differences
between myself and my father. His reply correctly indicated that
there had been no such personal differences. When I explained my
meaning in the term " trouble/' the subject was taken up with the
strictest interpretation of the temporal clause in the question. I
again supposed that this reply was wrong, as I had in my mind
the catarrh that he had imagined to be his disease. But the moment
that this idea was driven out of my head, I saw the entire
pertinence of both the message and the natural interpretation of my
question. Now my question may be treated as a suggestion to any
subliminal to choose between two alternatives in the interpretation of
it, and I do not care to dispute that view at present. But I must
emphasise the unity between the mental processes that both interpret
most naturally my question and immediately reproduce facts that are
not necessarily suggested by the interpretation of it as equivocal. The
spiritistic hypothesis explains them in a very simple manner, while any
other theory has to combine at least two, and perhaps more, processes
in order to meet the case. If the right interpretation of my question —
and both interpretations may be considered right — had been followed
by an entire mistake as to the facts about his death, the supposition of
secondary personality would cover the case. But this is not the fact.
We have either the unity and simple action of a single process of con-
itciousness, and so most naturally a spiritistic phenomenon, or the unity
of two wholly different processes, the existence of one of which is not

162

J. H. Hyalop, PkD.

[part

admitted in abnormal physiology or psychology at all, except in defer-
ence to the necessity of escaping spiritism, and even this admission
has to explain the fortuitous or fortunate combination of such
independent functions as telepathy and secondary personality without
supposing any normal or abnormal brain equivalents in evidence to
justify the assumption. The argument is purely a priori, while the
spiritistic theory requires no complexity but that of ordinary con-
sciousness and the necessary difficulties of communication in any case.

A more striking example is the cap incident. To say nothing of its
excluding telepathy from my mind, which it most probably does, as not
representing anything in my knowledge, it embodies three points of
considerable importance. (1) There is the frequent allusion to it both
when I was present and when I was absent (2) It was wholly
unknown to me when first mentioned, and discarded as useless on the
first occasion of its mention (p. 387). (3) It had a singular
pertinence for my father's identification to my stepmother and bean
distinct evidence of this purpose. The fact represented a very trivial
and very exceptional incident in his life. Now though the name
" Nannie/' which was wrong, was connected with it, I had already
suspected what it meant, and when I asked later (p. 478) who made this
cap, the answer involving an allusion to Hettie's mother, though
elucidating some confusion, indicated a unity in the case in a most
striking manner. There is in the case not merely the pertinence of the
single fact that my father had accidentally possessed such a cap as
is referred to, but the persistent interest in it, apparently for a purpose
that is entirely rational, and the final correction of the name associated
with it at first and the additional indication of the relationship of
my half-sister to the person intended — both circumstances representing
a mental fact or facts independent of my own interest in the case
and representing precisely the unity that should belong to surviving
consciousness and that is not reproduced in any of the evidence
that we have of the functions and capacities of telepathy. There if
both a double act of memory in the case and the synthetic action oi
an intelligence independent of my own in the way the facts are woven
together to make the meaning clear. The two memories are, first, thai
of the personal experience itself, the ownership of the cap, and second
the repeated reference to it during the sittings, representing an interest
and intelligent process out of proportion to the kind of interest I toot
in it, but quite consistent with the purpose of the communicator, who
after all, proved that he was right in the stress he was laying upon th<
incident. This memory from sitting to sitting is wholly at variance
with the photographing process of telepathy as experimentally
illustrated even when it involves a mixture of the percipient's ex
periences in the reproduction. It is the natural action of consciousnes

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 163

as we know it This characteristic is frequent regarding incidents
about which there was a desire to know if I had forgotten them, generally
showing an interest independent of mine and out of proportion to mine,
just as the case should be, if we are dealing with an independent
intelligence.

Take also the consistency of the mental attitude toward
my brother George throughout the whole series of experiments,
whether I was present or not. This feature, however, was not an
intentional act of memory, as in the case of the cap, where purpose is
so evident, but it was the natural action of a mind concomitant with
the incidents chosen to communicate, which perhaps I can detect more
easily than the reader, unless he can see it in the facts by which I
endeavour to make this characteristic clear.

Take again the answer to my question about the medicine which I
bought for him. This was given with substantial correctness as "Hinii "
(Hyomei), and the spontaneous addition made that strychnine was also
taken. This I knew nothing about at the time, and verified from three
sources, and did not learn that the two medicines were mentioned
together in one of his letters to me until long after this verification.
The Hyomei was a fact in my supraliminal, and the strychnine only in
my subliminal, this circumstance not making the slightest difference in
the success. Then in Dr. Hodgson's sitting the Hyomei was correctly
described as a vapour (p. 391) and alluded to more than once in both his
and my sittings. The independent memory here, throughout the
experiments, repeats the characteristic noted in the case of the cap
and shows the complex unity of pertinence, emotional interest, and
double memory. Now if the unity of the incidents were that of
telepathy I should in all expectation have gotten arsenic also, but
unless the " serris " (p. 336) be introduced as an attempt to get this,
and it can be taken as the attempt to give the strychnine, there is no
effort to complete the associated facts in my subliminal. On the
contrary, morphine was given, which was false (p. 384). Much less
is there the slightest trace throughout of obtaining what was the chief
matter of our constant correspondence, namely, politics. These little
incidents in the letters about medicine or other small affairs are very
infrequent, but if we are to suppose what telepathy illustrates as its
habitual function in our experimental investigations, it should repro-
duce the phenomena either as a whole as in the mind of the agent,
including here the arsenic and discussions about politics, or compound
them with the matter in the mind of the percipient. But nothing of
the kind is done. The selection and dissociation of a normal con-
sciousness is performed, and only those facts given which had a special
interest to my father in his life with reference to his disease. The unity
of these incidents, therefore, is that of a spontaneous and independer

Digitized by G0OgIe

164

J. H, Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

intelligence acting consistently with a known past and carrying
on the natural processes of consciousness, as opposed to the mechanical
and passive reproduction that ought to characterise telepathy, when it
does not interfuse the memories of the percipient with the facts
telepathically acquired. That is to say the unity is not one of my
memory, even when I can be said to know all the facts in one form or
another, but is a unity outside my conscious mind produced by
processes that clearly indicate another personality.

Still another illustration of this unity is the mention of the names
of my brothers and sisters. Putting aside the first sitting, which is too
confused to consider, the names of my brothers and sisters were
given correctly. All except one of them were in the form in which
they were used in life, and this one, namely, Hettie, was the correct
nickname for my half-sister. Though father never used this, it was
the natural abbreviation of Henrietta. The giving of it was associated
with the assistance of G. P. (Cf. Proceedings, Vol. XIII., p. 375»
Tillie for Matilda). But these names were not given all at once. They
were distributed throughout the sittings and connected with incidents
pertaining to them in life, giving again the double unity and pertinence
of synthetic character and the memory of a terrestrial past supposedly
terminated by death and of time relations that are not so terminated,
but which are most natural on the supposition that the content
connected with them is real and not artificial. There was, besides,
usually the proper emotional and intellectual interest associated with
each one mentioned, and this was especially sustained throughout in
regard to the two for whom my father had been particularly solicitous
in life.

There is a most interesting incident in this mention of the names
of the family that makes the spiritistic theory far more clear than any
other. This fact is the curious, but natural and correct distinction
between the communication of proper names in the family and the
same outside the family. This seems to characterise the habits of all
the communicators in so far as any demand existed for it. Not once
does my father give the surnames of any of the family, except twice his
own. He simply gives the Christian name, as he always did in life when
speaking of them, and just as all persons speaking of their children or
members of the family would do. But he just as naturally and in con-
formity with his own and the usual custom gives, or tries to give, the full
name, Christian and surname, of those outside the family when he has
occasion to speak of them. The same habit is noticeable in my cousin.
* He speaks of my brothers as " Robert Hyslop " and 4< Frank Hyslop,"
but never gives the surname of his wife or children. He does not say
to me " your brother Robert," as my father gives relationship instead
of surname, but he gives the full name. He calls my father " Uncle

Digitized by

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 165

Hyslop " once to distinguish him. It is not necessary that this habit
should be absolutely uniform, as certain persons in the attempt to com-
municate might very well recognise the importance of giving the full
name at the outset and on all occasions requiring it. This dealing
with names in accordance with the natural habit in life of the com-
municators is the action of an independent mind, and not the passive
reproduction of telepathic photography. This is evident from the
fact that the names of my brothers and sisters together with the
associated incidents are the same in my memory for all communicators,
and telepathy ought to get the same form unless we attribute a larger
power of knowledge and distinction than is conceivable ; it must
simply have all knowledge possible and be able to adjust itself rightly
to any degree of naturalness and complexity not represented in the
sitter's mind, but still true to habit outside that mind. That is to
say, the subliminal of Mrs. Piper has already recognised this habit of
the human race, and in addition to its infinite telepathic power, can
vary the organic unity of the facts gotten from any mind to suit the
habits of the person whose name she acquires with his relationship to
the sitter ! When such fine distinctions as I have just remarked are
observed, by the communicators, in conformity with their actual
habits when living, we have a phenomenon that is intelligible only on
the spiritistic hypothesis, and any other theory does not explain at all,
but only makes the problem insoluble by appealing to a power that can
do anything because we choose to say so, when in fact we do not know
that the infinite can do anything. We do know that consciousness in
its actual life does this very thing, and we do not know what telepathy
is at all. It is a mere name for causal connection, and as a known
process by which to explain the synthetic unity of consciousness it is
non est. The scientific requirement to appeal to known causes for
explanation is better satisfied by the spiritistic than by the telepathic
theory. That is, in one we appeal to a known and in the other to an
unknown cause, telepathy being the unknown.

Again one of the most remarkable illustrations of this unity,
independent of what was most natural in my memory, is the system
of incidents connected with the conversation that I had with my
father two years before his death on this very subject of spirit
communication, and that are reproduced in all the main particulars
(pp. 30-34). The facts are : (1) Our conversations on the subject ;
(2) My doubts about it; (3) The intimation that I had explained
much by hallucination ; (4) The implication that I had used the
" thought theory " to explain spiritism away ; (5) The Swedenborg
incident ; (6) The promise (not strictly true, but possibly intended)
to return to me after death ; (7) The reference to hypnotism ; (8)
The allusion to the "young woman who had had some experiments

166

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

and dreams"; (9) The allusion to "some kind of manifestations
(apparitions) you were in doubt about"; (10) That these took place
on my last visit to him.

The general unity of these incidents is indicated when I say that
they do represent accurately just what we did talk about on that
occasion except the promise to return. But the most important feature
of it is the Swedenborg incident. The reason for this is the slight
place which it had in my memory, being absolutely forgotten, and
verifiable only by the explicit testimony of my stepmother, and the
natural interest which the communicator shows in a work which he has
suddenly discovered to be like what he found in Swedenborg. That
interest is also enhanced by the fact that my father had all his life, as
he actually says here, according to Rector's interpretation (p. 386),
shut his eyes to the facts that pointed in this direction and kept
his mind steadily toward his dogmatic theology. It was, therefore,
perfectly natural and an indication of independent intelligence for him
to seize on the incidents of our conversation and present them as
here actually realised in these communications, illustrating the doctrine
of Swedenborg, who was the only spiritualist of whom he knew any-
thing whatsoever. He did not know enough of its modern phases to
despise the doctrine, and saw even Swedenborg in his best light
That emotional characteristic of the whole set of incidents on this
point gives the clue to both the complexity and the unity of the case.
When we consider the very little knowledge that I had of Sweden-
borg, this being limited to turning over the pages of his books once or
twice in my life and but for a few minutes, and to the historical
incident of the Stockholm fire, we can see more distinctly how
unnatural is the unity of the case from my standpoint, and how
much more natural it was from that of my father, who had actually
talked about Swedenborg with my stepmother after my departure,
thus showing his interest at the time in the connection between
Swedenborg's doctrine and the subject we were discussing. Making
that connection again here, wholly as a pertinent illustration of the
nature and object of these experiments, without anything but my
subliminal to work upon, is a suggestion of independent intel-
ligence that can hardly be rivalled by any set of phenomena,
especially as it took two independent minds on this side to get
any unity in the case in regard to this special incident. But even
then it does not get the characteristic of interest that evidently
marked the communicator's consciousness, but only the unity of fact
representing the truth of the incidents, while from the standpoint of
the communicator there is both the persistent interest in the idea con-
nection and the discovery of its present application. This last is not
a feature of my memory at all, but the spontaneous act of intelligence

xix] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 167

other than the passive access of telepathy and so the organising
unification of facts in an independent mind and memory. That is to
say, we have the appropriate appreciation of a fact evidently thought
about more in life than I was aware of and interposed here in perfect
simulation of real intelligence.

This unity outside my mind again is illustrated in the incidents
communicated by my cousin Robert McClellan (p. 442), in which the
statement calling his sister his aunt created nothing but confusion for
me, until I learnt that it was his habit uniformly during his long
illness to call her this in deference to the habit of his children, she
having nursed him during some months. It happens to be a case also
in which it was impossible for me under any circumstances to have
known the fact, as all the events occurred years after I had even seen
them together, and nearly two years after I had seen either of them.
All the relations expressed in the message were natural and true,
but the one incident that makes that unity rational was the single fact
that I did not know. (Cf. pp. 231-235.)

I shall take one more illustration of this characteristic. It is one
of the finest in the record. I refer to the cane incidents (pp. 397-8).
In the sittings by Dr. Hodgson the allusions were confused and could
have obtained no meaning at all for one who did not happen to be
finpiliftr with the facts, that give the clue, or who does not understand
the treatment of confusion in communications. But in the later
personal sitting the unity was indicated in an unexpected manner,
and my investigation revealed facts that I never knew. I saw, as my
notes indicate, that in Dr. Hodgson's sittings two canes were possibly
in the mind of the communicator. To clear this up I took the indirect
way of asking a question first about another incident connected with
the cane I had in mind, and after obtaining the proper recognition I
asked who gave him this cane, and the reply showed a memory of the
previous communication whose meaning I had conjectured, aud the
reference to Dr. Hodgson as the one to whom he had given the com-
munication. The allusion to the "ring" on the cane is perhaps equivocal,
as it may refer to the "gold bug" that I wanted given, and that was
drawn, or to the tin ring which had been used to repair the broken
cane which was most probably the one referred to at Dr. Hodgson's
sitting. Now in my mind these three canes were not associated at all.
I cannot now recall seeing the broken one, though it is probable that
I had seen it, but less probable that I had seen it after it was broken.
I have a vague recollection that my aunt who gave me the money to
get the cane which I sent my father told me his old one was broken.
But I remembered only the ebony cane of many years ago, and the
one I gave him, neither being in any way associated together, and
much less with the one that mine supplanted. Here then are three

168

J. H. Hydop, PkD.

[part

things that are not specially connected in my mind, but which were so
connected in the mind and experience of my father, and there was
every reason in the world for his supposing that the mention of them
would prove his identity. The synthetic unity of the incidents con-
nected with those three canes would be difficult to duplicate by any
process imaginable in this universe, but a human or divine memory,
using the last to assume that an infinite process not human might do it.
The various ways of using the cane indicated were incidents of which I
was absolutely ignorant, so that again we get a unity that consists of
several interesting facts : (1) The pertinence of the facts to the
personal identity of the communicator ; (2) The unity between those
that I did know and those that I did not know and some wholly
forgotten ; (3) The unity of the memory between the various sittings ;
(4) The unity of facts, a part of which, and the most important part,
was obtaimed when I was not present, with the facts obtained when I
was present ; (5) The unity of facts and interests on the part of the
communicator which did not exist in my mind, even when the incidents
singly were known to me in most of the cases. All these charac-
teristics are simple enough on the spiritistic theory, but incompre-
hensible on any other. The last feature is the most forcible against
telepathy, as it makes it necessary to confer upon that process a power
to wholly disregard the law of association in the mind of the subject
from which the facts are obtained, and at any distance in space, and
weave them into the proper unity to reproduce the real personality of
another in all its complex significance. In experimental telepathy, as I
have all along remarked, the telepathic process reproduces what is in
the mind of the agent, associates and all, and does not select uncon-
nected incidents from this memory and reproduce another personality.
But in the Piper case we must suppose that telepathy can enjoy
ad libitum power to change from the purely receptive to the construc-
tive process of reproducing personal identity, and without any regard
to the limitations of time and space, as this incident especially shows.
Now such a theory does not explain. It simply makes the problem
larger and the cause inconceivable.

I could pass through all the more complex passages of the record in
the same way, and they would but illustrate the same characteristic
that I have indicated in instances having interesting and important
variations. This characteristic is the natural unity of consciousness,
represented in the terms of memory and association as known, and
which we might suppose to exist in a discarnate spirit, a unity that did
not exist for my consciousness in the form that is presented in the
record, either in my expectations or in my recognition in all cases, but
which is found on examination to be most natural to the communi-
cator. This unity also represents exactly the differences of choice in the

Digitized by

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 169

incidents that we remark in common life and experience. A. never
recalls exactly the same incidents that B. recalls in their common life
in all their details. The point of interest always varies sufficiently with
the personal equation to originate surprises and facts that one party has
forgotten or even did not know, especially in the selection of incidents
determined by the difference of interests in the events. A. recalls a
boat ride with B. and the fact that they smoked a particular kind of
cigar. B. remembers the ride but not the smoking. Again A. recalls a
conversation with B. about the sale of his farm and a visit to a friend
to whom he was going when he had the conversation. B. recollects the
conversation, but knows nothing about the visit and only learns it by
inquiry after being told it. This is what we have in the incidents dis-
cussed and taken from the record. They are the phenomena of indepen-
dent intelligences, and not of some all embracing mind or infinite
telepathy cooped up in a woman's brain.

It may be useful in this connection to call the reader's atten-
tion to certain significant incidents which I was at first inclined
to attribute to raediumistic manufacture, but which turned out on
careful investigation to have some, I would say considerable, evidential
importance. I refer to the cap incident (pp. 387, 406), the special
pertinence of the hymn, "Nearer my God to Thee" (p. 389), the
strychnine (p. 337), the expression "Give me my hat and let me go "
(pp. 307, 313), my father's visit to me (p. 440), the paper cutter
(p. 379), the reference to Swedenborg (pp. 30-34), all the details of
the Cooper incident (pp. 51-54), and especially the reference to the
Cooper school (p. 420), and perhaps a number of less specific allusions.
Incidents like these, which are often not recalled by the sitter, and
which are as often repudiated as preposterous, are precisely the
kind which demand the most careful examination. The mere failure
to recall an incident is an insufficient ground on which to reject it as
false or even improbable. The memories of communicator and the
sitter, as above remarked, may not necessarily coincide in the details
of their experience. This is perhaps a commonplace of reminiscences.
Bat it will be interesting to remark that a frequent facsimile of such
incidents occurred in my experiments on the Identification of
Personality in which the communicator often felt assured that he
would succeed in absolutely establishing his identity by a certain
incident which was not recalled at all by the receiver, and he was
often identified by evidence considered less specific and suggestive than
what he had chosen to be final and conclusive. As illustrations of
this disparity of memories let me refer the reader for comparison to

the following incidents in those experiments. See Questions 3, p. 555 ;
8, p. 558; 17, p. 574; 21, p. 579; 15, 18, 22, p. 585; 12, p. 590 ;
10, 15, 17, p. 593; 2, 4, p. 596 ; 14, p. 601 ; 15, p. 613. Much of

170

H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Experiment VI., Group A, p. 559, and practically the whole of
Experiment X., p. 572, in the same group, illustrate this peculiarity.
Such facts, taken in connection with the evidential import of the
incidents at first attributed to secondary personality, and later found
to have significance, rather indicate a psychological interest and unity
independent of the sitter's mind, and do much to strengthen the
spiritistic theory.

But there is another aspect to this unity which I have not
mentioned, but which is as noticeable in the instances discussed as in
those that are yet to be produced. Hitherto I have emphasised the
unity that lies outside ray mind and have raised the questions
appropriate to such a phenomenon. But there is another aspect of this
synthetic unity which notes the circumstance that a number of
independent facts are selected to constitute the whole incident, as it
was stated in the statistical summary. Our experiences in life represent
an indefinite number of objects or events connected together in a single
whole. The separate objects or facts have no necessary connection in
our minds. There is nothing in the name Adams, for instance, that
necessitates any one's thinking of the Presidency, and nothing in the
two to suggest that President Adams would necessarily indicate a
true combination. Hence when we are forced to study statements
and incidents in a record of this kind we can best test the hypotheses
of telepathy and chance by examining this synthetic unity of the facts
given. If it consists more easily with independent intelligence than
with any other supposition we cannot rationally adopt any other theory.

Let me first take the incident about the old horse Tom (p. 423).
There are four independent facts in this instance, facts that cannot be
put together as they are without supposing intelligence. The facts
are : (1) The name Tom ; (2) the statement that it referred to a horse;
(3) the name of my brother George ; (4) the implication that my
brother was connected with the disposal of the horse. Either of
these names would as easily consist with the idea of a horse as the
other, and neither of them would suggest in a guessing mind the
unity that they actually have in this case, and this is heightened by
the evident demand of Rector that the communicator be certain of his
meaning. One of the facts I did not know. But the unity that they
possess exists in not more than eight living persons, and perhaps leas.
It was not complete in my mind. Hence we cannot apply photo-
graphic telepathy, whatever that may mean, to my mind alone ; but
the instantaneous selection, from some other living person unknown to
the medium and at the distance of one thousand miles, of the one
incident to give the case the completeness it has, without marring its
truthfulness, is a fact beyond comprehension except on the spirit;

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 171

hypothesis. The process is then more than telepathy, according to
the necessities of telepathy itself. The medium has, by supposition,
not only to secure her facts in an isolated form, but to construct the
appropriate unity. The only escape from this is the assumption that
the telepathic process is dodging about through the world and selects
each whole from the individual mind that possesses it. The statement
of that supposition condemns it, especially as it is made in a purely
a priori manner to cover facts, the utmost of which we know is that
they must be explained. Then if it is a receptive process acquiring
the facts from my mind, why not take scores of associated incidents in
my mind about this very horse, instead of going to the minds of others
to complete the whole. It is, instead of this, the constructive act of
an independent intelligence, even if we suppose the incidents selected
from the memory of the sitter by telepathy. The incidents are
selected out of a larger whole in that memory and interwoven with
the fact that I did not know, and all to impress me more favourably
with the hypothesis of spiritism ! How much easier to suppose that
it is nothing but the natural operation of a finite and surviving
consciousness selecting in the ordinary way of memory what it wants
for establishing its identity. There are no miracles in this view, and
scepticism has not to be burdened with a belief in the supernatural.

A precisely similar incident is that in which my aunt Nannie is
said to have helped in bringing up us children after the death of my
mother (p. 449). The independent facts constituting the whole are :
(1) The old home; (2) the town of 0. ; (3) the name of my aunt;
(4) the death of my mother ; (5) my aunt's living with us after that
event; (6) my aunt's help in bringing up us children. The
pertinence of the reference to the " old home " is found in the fact
that it tacitly recognises and implies to me, quite definitely, the
distinction between his home after 1889 and the place where he was
born and lived until the year mentioned, the change of residence
having been mentioned at a previous sitting of Dr. Hodgson (p. 406).
As said in the note (p. 449), the phrase " little town of C." is not
correct in the letter, but as proper names always give difficulty, and
the sound of "C" is one of the elements of the right letter in the
Indo-European language from which the correct name, Xenia, is taken,,
there is no difficulty for me in recognising the intended meaning. All
the other factors are exactly correct. The general complexity of the
incident would not be greatly altered by the omission of the first two
factors, but the omission of the others or a change in the relation of
time expressed would disturb its integrity very considerably. As it
stands, the conjunction of independent facts involving the right
relations of time and action, and representing events extending over
two or three years' time, makes a consolidated whole that is just what

172

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[PAKT

the surviving consciousness of my father would produce. The factors
are the salient points also in the incidents of the years involved, and
exhibit the selectiveness that is appropriate to identification, while the
message shows the proper emotional attitude toward my aunt.

Still another illustration of this synthetic unity of independent
factors is the passage in Dr. Hodgson's sitting for me (p. 401), in
which reference is made to this aunt, my brother George, and the
anxieties of all three of us about that brother. The passage includes
incidents about other matters which I shall admit into the whole
because they are all given in one breath, as it were. The indepen-
dent facts are: (1) Allusion to the rough country roads; (2) the
" coach " (should be carriage) ; (3) reference to my aunt's motherly
advice ; (4) emotional attitude toward that aunt ; (5) name of Ohio,
this being his old home; (6) name of Bartlett; (7) name of my
brother George ; (8) the principal of the school ; (9) father's talk with
this principal; (10) the fact that the talk was about my brother;
(11) my father's confessed trouble about this brother; (12) the state-
ment that father left (died) with this worry on his mind ; (13) the
fact that we three shared in anxieties about this brother. There are
also several unverifiable factors in the passage, and 1 have omitted
these because they cannot be in any way considered evidential.
Here then are thirteen independent factors in a sustained message,
one of them (Bartlett) doubtful in its import, but twelve of them
true and synthetically connected in the actual life of my father, the
incidents about my brother covering twenty years of my father's life
and emotional concern. Those regarding him represent an extraordi-
nary combination of incidents and pertinence, and they must try the
telepathic theory very severely because they have had, on that
supposition, to be selected individually from my memory and woven
together into a systematic unity by an original constructive power so
as to reproduce adequate evidence of personal identity. Still more
astonishing must be the mention of facts pertaining to the alleged
transcendental world which could neither be gotten from my mind by
telepathy nor verified. This is a strange slip for such an assumed
power to be guilty of, considering that it must deceive us as well
as be deceived itself ! It requires something else than telepathy to
play the part of secondary personality and imitate omniscience both
in this and the truth of the incidents, especially when the allusions to
what is going on in the transcendental world represent truly the
characteristics of my father and his proper emotional attitude toward
the difference between me and my brother, and his appeal to religious
methods of adjusting this difference, precisely as he would do in life.
In presenting this unity it is also important to note that the time and
thought relations have a direct connection with each other in the life

xli] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 173

of my father, while the incidents as mentioned were not so associated
in my memory. The direct connection of the talk with the principal
of the school about my brother with the idea of a college suggested by
my question, remembering that I was not present, and the fact that
this talk about my brother occurred soon after sending me to college,
are matters that supply much psychological interest to this unity.
A similar reference to the same thought at an earlier sitting and in
another connection is suggestive (Cf. p. 338).

If I had only isolated and simple coincidences to deal with, such as
the mere names of the family, or coincidences without synthetic
elements in them and connected with proper names, and if I had to fill
them up with meaning from my own apperceptions, the argument
would be very different. We may tolerate and explain the defects of
such incidents, if we have gotten enough to establish our case for
spiritism, but it is a different thing to build it up from coincidences
that are too slight. Thus, in my first sitting, there is quite a number
of pertinent names — Annie, Charles, Mary, Margaret, possibly Lillie for
Luella, and Elizabeth for Eliza. But relevant as they may be,
especially with the description of who the Mary and Elizabeth
were, naming their relation to my father and mother, they cannot
be treated as conclusive. Of course the fact that in the whole
series of seventeen sittings the right names and relation to me are
given of the members of the family, all the living and three of the
dead, without any proper fishing or guessing at others, is an evidential
consideration. But this treats the matter collectively and not
distributively. But in this first sitting there is too much admixture
of irrelevant matter to give the correct names any weight, unless there
are synthetic elements connected with them. This does not occur
until near the close where several correct facts, connected with the
illness and death of my brother Charles, are indicated. Only at that
point did the facts assume any value. In all the other sittings
a name hardly occurs without the indication of some synthetic
incident, calculated to identify the person intended, and without
the mention of a surname. Some exceptions occur where a
mistake is made fixing the wrong name to a given incident
(pp. 428, 454). Sometimes this synthetic character involves a
whole congeries of facts, as already exemplified. But it is more
frequent that some one incident is linked with another or with a
name, such as a relationship by which the asserted or suspected
identity can be recognised. For instance, I am asked in one case
whether I remember ray brother Charles. In another I am asked.
** How is Frank now ? " Lida is given as the name of my sister,
James McClellan is called my uncle, and " Uncle Clarke " is said to
hare married my father's sister. In all these instances the synthetic

^ * Digitized by Google

174

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

element adds immensely to the force of the name, as it equally
-excludes guessing and brings an incident into the field of evidential
value. In many cases there is no difficulty in recognising the person
meant by the mere incident given, as it is so specific and peculiar to
the individual, connected with it in the memory of the sitter, as to
exclude the possibility of illusion. Compare the references to " Nannie"
which I have treated as mistakes for Maggie, my stepmother (pp. 69,
342, 365). But wherever this synthesis occurs, and it is an element
in nearly every incident to which I have attached any evidential value,
it constitutes the natural requisite for proving personal identity, as
it duplicates exactly the phenomena by which we establish personal
identity in ordinary life, when we have not the physical accidents
to help us or to determine our judgment. It is interesting to
compare this with the means of identification in the experiments
imitating the Piper case (pp. 537-623), where the identification
was almost uniformly correct without this synthetic element, except
as it occurred in the accumulative and collective force of separate
incidents. But as a general rule, if not uniformly, incidents
leading to identification did not present this synthetic character,
so that in the Piper case we have an a fortiori argument of
great strength for evidential significance. All this is indefinitely
reinforced by the increased complexity and constantly synthetic unity
oi the phenomena passing as spirit messages, as they represent an
organising intelligence which has to be assumed, not only in addition
to telepathy, but also perfectly in command of all the association
and disassociation necessary to reconstruct into a synthetic unity
the elements that make up an evidential whole, that is true to
reality in all instances except those that are due to the difficulties of
communicating and those that are natural lapses of memory. These
lapses and mistakes should not occur at all, if that organising power
which is external to the brain from which the facts are obtained, and
which goes by the name of telepathy, is half so wonderful as it is
supposed to be.

Let me take the following instance in which this synthetic unity is
very complex and exemplifies not only what has already been illus-
trated, but also the dramatic play of personality and the personation
of two independent memories in the same incident, so that the organi-
sation of the facts into one whole leading to the identity of two
persons involves a wonderful selection, past all comprehension on the
telepathic supposition. It is the remarkable passage in which my
41 uncle Clarke" gets somewhat, though not badly, tangled, and is
helped out by my father by an incident pertinent to himself and not
to my uncle (p. 442). In this incident the following facts are crowded
together all in a few sentences: (1) Name of my sister Annie; (2)

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 175

statement that she is my sister ; (3) my own name in full ; (4) name
of " aunt Lida " ; (5) statement that she is my aunt ; (6) name of my
sister Lida ; (7) statement that she is my sister ; (8) statement that she
is still living : (9) mention of my father by himself ; (10) his allusion
to the name of my "uncle Clarke " ; (11) statement that Lida was the
member of his family whom he had not mentioned. All these are
true facts, and I have omitted from this catalogue the two names
(Pierce and cousin Annie) which are not correct ; because the name
Pierce, though it is evident who is meant (p. 442), is not necessarily a
partof the main incident whose unity I am presenting. The name "cousin
Annie " is probably a mistake for my " cousin Nannie" who was very
intimate with my uncle and his family (p. 536 ). Pierce, however, assuming
my interpretation of it, is pertinent, and the mistake of cousin Annie
is a perfectly explicable factor in the unity remarked. But the eleven
independent facts and relations — all correct — make up a synthetic unity
which it would seem impossible to parallel by any means except the
spiritistic. This is especially true when we see the organising intelli-
gence deliberately endeavouring to draw distinctions between persons
not associated together anywhere in my mind except at the sittings,
and then inserting the interruption by my father who takes up in a
remarkable relative clause the allusion to my sister as the one
that he had up to this point failed to mention. The allegation that
ray uncle was confused was not a telepathic acquisition from my
mind, because I thought him unusually clear, but the thread of
connection between the mention of my sister's name and father's
memory of the fact that he had not yet mentioned her, is just the
kind of thing that ought to happen if we are dealing with
spirits. In this remarkable passage we find two independent
personalities kept distinct in spite of the mere relative clause connect-
ing them, and in addition a memory of the accusation I had made,
that one member of the family had not been mentioned who is here
correctly indicated. The only rational interpretation of such a
phenomenon is the spiritistic.

I could go through the whole record in the same way, but it would
only multiply illustrations without making the argument any clearer.
The reader can work out the application of the principle to other
eases for himself after these examples. They will all represent a con-
sistent coherence and true synthesis of facts that might be independent
of each other but for their truth and pertinence for identification of
the persons who are represented as communicators. The whole
organisation of the synthesis is independent of the mind of the
sitter, as they are not wholes of his past personal experience in
the form in which they are presented as messages, but would have t
be selected individually as elements and interwoven into the accur

176

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[PART

true incidents that they are by a power which is infinitely vaster than
anything we know in the physiology and psychology of both normal
and abnormal phenomena. But they are unities of consciousness
perfectly simple on the spirit hypothesis, especially when we observe
the natural mistakes that ought not to occur at all with such a power
as we may be tempted to assume in order to escape the spiritistic
theory.

(2) The Dramatic Play of Personality.

By this dramatic play of personality I mean that kind of action and
change of content and characteristics which we should legitimately
expect and demand either in any change of communicators, or in
adjusting the incidences of communication on the " other side," and
which occurs naturally in ordinary conversation between two or
more persons. It is not easy to define this peculiarity, as it must
be indicated only in certain apparent irelevancies and confusion
in the course of a narrative where we note apparent incoherence or an
interruption of the messages, and the appearance of another com-
municator. The drama on the stage represents it, and so will any
instance of conversation between two or more persons, but in these
normal cases there are the physical accidents that always initiate as well
as indicate the change before the psychological peculiarities display
themselves. But in the present experiments there are no physical
accidents whatever, except that at times movements of the hand or
changes in the handwriting may indicate a change of personality or
communicator. But very often or generally the indications of it are
either the confusion of the present communicator or the nature of
the message. We have only the psychological and logical content to
exhibit to us this play, and it is represented by statement and con-
versation partaking often of the nature of intercourse that cannot
appear appropriate at all, except as something going on between inter-
locutors beyond and behind the ordinary stage of activity. That is to
say, the whole phenomenon of these communications partakes of the
appearance of several distinct personalities acting together for a
definite end, and in the progress of their work they meet difficulties
and obstacles which give rise to interruptions, explanations, directions
and reciprocal conversation with all the marks of distinct and real
personalities, instead of the mechanical play of the ordinary secondary
personality, as we know it in its various natural and artificial forms.
This argument from the play of personality I consider one of
e strongest that can be advanced for the spiritistic theory in
far as it verifies a previously formed hypothesis, and I shall
mine it at considerable length on that account. I cannot
"•der it, however, apart from the unity of consciousness displayed

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 177

by the incidents evidencing personal identity, but only as con-
firming the position taken by that argument. It is not enough
that there should be dramatic play of personality without evidence
of personal identity. The latter is the primary problem and sub-
ordinates dramatic play to itself. The phenomena of secondary
personality, though they rarely display such elasticity and simulation of
reality as the dramatic play in the Piper phenomena, are yet in
some cases too dangerously near it, in the characteristics that should
make us cautious, for us to stake the case upon this second argument
alone. But in spite of the radical difference between the Piper
phenomena and those of secondary personality generally I do not
think that we should elevate the argument from dramatic play into
the first rank. The criterion for personal identity must be satisfied,
primarily as the condition of any future life for existing beings, and
secondarily as the fact that gives added meaning to the dramatic play,
while the latter is a consequence which we ought to expect on the
supposition that we were dealing with spirits instead of Mrs. Piper's
subliminal. I give the argument great weight, much greater in the
estimation of the Piper phenomena as a whole than in my own sittings
etlone. But I do not give it the first importance. It is simply a
corollary of the argument from personal identity, as something which
we should be entitled to expect in a change from one communicator to
another, or in the action that represents anything like an attempt to
give unity and purpose to the management of an exceeding complex
system of conditions. It is this feature of the communications which,
in my mind, plays such havoc with the telepathic hypothesis, while
supporting the spiritistic. It complicates telepathy too much with
the assumption of omnipotence or omniscience on the part of Mrs.
Piper's brain. We have already seen how large that supposition must
be made to meet the conditions of acquisition, but when this dramatic
play of personality has to be included in the functions of the medium's
brain along with telepathy we shall find that we are adding one
infinity to another merely to escape a simple hypothesis which only
applies the known laws of mind to explain phenomena that bear the
character of evidence for personal identity.

In discussing this second argument, or illustrating the dramatic
play of personality, it will be best to take the order of the record and
watch its development as we proceed. I shall improve the opportunity
to call attention on each proper occasion to the incompatibility of tho
facts with any telepathic theory that is supposedly represented in either
experimental thought-transference or spontaneous apparitions and
coincidences.

The first feature to be remarked in this dramatic play is the
general place of Imperator and Rector in it. Every sitting is marke

178

J, H. Hyslop, PLD.

[PABT

by the action, if only for a time, of one or both these personalities.
I do not enter into any speculation as to what they are, as a pre-
condition of a spiritistic conclusion, however much we might desire to
have the question of their nature determined. Their recognition as
anything more than secondary personalities of Mrs. Piper's organism
must be determined by the issue of psychical research, as I have no
information leading to their identification as they appear in the
communications of the present record. If the spiritistic theory be
accepted as the most rational account of the phenomena here pur-
porting to represent personal identity, we may well accept Imperator
and Rector to be what they claim to be, namely, discarnate spirits.
There is much in my sittings, more independent of them, to suggest
their genuinely spiritistic character, and this without insisting upon the
evidential incidents that are so necessary in any adequate scientific
proof, and that are so apparent in the various individuals who are the
communicators to me, and who are trying to establish their identity.
This evidence is the distinct, consistent, and intelligent part they play
in the whole phenomenon, representing as complete a unity of con-
sciousness for each one of them as the most rigid sceptic could demand
of any real person whatsoever. The whole content of their communi-
cations, their manner and their character, are out of proportion with
anything we know of Mrs. Piper, or of secondary personality generally.
But I shall not assume that their personality is exempt from the same
evidential considerations that are applied to the other communicators,
and so must suspend the issue until the case is made out for the latter,
as the main argument must depend upon evidence for identity. Of
course, if we assume that Imperator and Rector are the secondary
personalities of Mrs. Piper, we have large enough powers of intelligent
action assumed to make it all the more difficult to transcend the
telepathic hypothesis. Hence if a man choose to reverse the argument,
he may wish to say that we should suspend judgment upon the identity
of the communicators other than the "controls," until some decisive
hypothesis has been reached concerning the latter. That is to say,
instead of subordinating the character of Imperator and Rector to
the issue of the identity of others, we may have to settle the choice
between spirits and secondary personality in their case in order to
justify the abandonment of telepathy in favor of spiritism in the case
of other communicators. Of course telepathy is out of court in the
personality of Imperator and Rector, and in lieu of evidence for their
identity we might assume that they are merely secondary personalities
with remarkable powers that might include sufficient telepathic
capacity to satisfy the problem. But suggestive as this objection
and way of putting the matter may be, it is right here that the
dramatic play of personality comes in to both corroborate the unity

Digitized by Google

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 179

of consciousness and identity for other communicators and to offer
evidence for the spiritistic nature of Imperator and Rector against
secondary personality, and in spite of the lack of the evidence for
identity in their cases. It is simply the want of evidence for identity
in their cases that suggests secondary personality, as in the usual
simulation of spiritism. But the slightest study of the communica-
tions of Imperator and Rector, especially in matter not yet published,
will readily disillusion the observer regarding the right to make this
assumption too easily. The phenomena which they have exhibited ever
since they supplanted Phinuit are too spiritistically real in their appear-
ance to be dismissed hastily, and when we understand this dramatic
play, which it is by no means easy to do without a series of sittings
in order personally to see it work we shall quickly discover reasons in
its realism to justify its subordination to the identity problem of
persons whose identity it is possible to establish. The beginning and
close of each sitting will indicate why this assertion can be made and
sustained.

Now in order to understand this play of personality rightly we
must form a clear conception of what the Piper phenomenon purports
to be, and of its modus operandi, as described by these chief figures
themselves, Imperator and Rector. It must be remembered distinctly
that the phenomenon does not represent itself as an immediate com-
munication with the discarnate spirit, whose identity is at issue. This
was not often the case even in the Phinuit regime, and can be said
never to be the case now. This fact is in favour of its claims, as
it consists with the whole superficial character of the affair,. and
diminishes the chances for accusing it of deception without making
this so archly fiendish as to baffle all hope of finding it either
intelligible or finite in its capacities. But whether so or not, it consis-
tently represents itself as only an indirect communication with the
spirits whose identity is at issue. Hence it purports to be a coterie or
group of discarnate spirits, with Imperator at their head, endeavouring
to reveal immortality to man, supervising the conditions, and regulating
the rights and occasions of communication between the terrestrial and
a transcendental world. One of them, usually Rector, serves as
amanuensis in writing the messages purporting to come from the com-
municating spirit. Sometimes between him and the communicator are
one or more intermediaries through whom the message must come
before Rector obtains it and writes it for the sitter, just as if several
persons were necessary to manage a telephone. Compare the inter-
ruptions of G. P. (p. 211). This situation would naturally give rise
to the dramatic play of personality and much else besides, especially
if the machine used had any tendency to express automatically
what was going on among the group in the mutual conversatior

Digitized by

180

/. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[part

and directions that might take place in the management of so
complex an affair with its difficulties and misunderstandings. Any
change of person or actor, or confusion in the communicator, would
reflect itself in characteristics and statements which would represent
the distinctive features of varying personality.

This is exactly what we observe in the record. The communica-
tions show precisely the differences which we should expect to find
when different persons communicate. The personal equation should
and does count in the results as distinctly as would be expected. It
ought to be apparent how this tells against telepathy, as there is no altera-
tion in the conditions of Mrs. Piper or her powers in such a matter,
nor is there any alteration in the data in the memory of the sitter
from which the facts are presumably drawn by the telepathic process.
But of this again. The main point at present is the distinctive marks
of different personalities represented in the various communicators,
in the change from one to the other. For instance, the messages from
Rector are perfectly regular when no other person is communicating,
and no confusion is apparent except as incident to disturbance in tbe
4< light," as they usually call the medium, or the conditions for
communicating. His communications are almost wholly uninterrupted
and free from confusion. This is true on any theory whatsoever.
The difference seems to correspond to the differences of real persons
in regard to their familiarity perhaps with the conditions of communi-
cation. It is marked by a distinctness and freedom from artificiality
that never seems to occur in the phenomena of hypnosis and secondary
personality generally, especially when the physical accompaniments of
such phenomena involving external changes of expression and character
so often betray their subjective source, while here in the Piper case
there is nothing of this kind. This difference remarked is a suggestive
one, and must be carefully studied before rejecting its significance
in the interests of spiritism.

There are two special features of this dramatic play that claim
attention. They are : (1) The mental and moral characteristics of the
different personalities concerned, and (2) the reproduction of those
interruptions, apparent incoherences and confusions, and interplay of
conversations, remarks, directions, cautions, etc., which would occur
under some such conditions as the phenomena purport to represent,
namely, situations in a spiritistic world that are exactly similar to
those in actual life.

In regard to the first of these features, the difference between
Phinuit and the two present " controls," Imperator and Rector, is
extreme. Phinuit was in many respects a conceited and vulgar
personality ; not always so, but often enough to create a dislike toward
him. In situations trying to his temper he often displayed that

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 181

manner which showed no special refinement such as actually
characterises Mrs. Piper, and still less did he comprehend the problem
as it presented itself to the sitter, so that he assumed a browbeating
temper, scolding like a vixen at times. He was so proud of his
powers that he was ready and willing to undertake almost any experi-
ment to show himself off, until he would discredit his own claims by
phenomena that exhibited no bearing on his own identity or on that
of anybody else. There was absolutely nothing of the religious
nature about him. He was a subject quite suitable for purgatorial
discipline. He had a sense of humour and was ready to joke and
play tricks. It is the very opposite with Imperator and Rector. They
are nothing if not religious. Their whole phraseology and style of
thought are intensely religious, and represent this characteristic in a
very lofty manner. They are, or seem to be, as lacking in the sense
of humour as a Puritan, and exhibit a moral and religious seriousness
that has no equal outside the church of the most orthodox type. They
take their mission far more seriously than Phinuit, appreciate its
importance morally and religiously very much better than he did or
could, and exhibit no disposition to show off in remarkable per-
formances. They never condescend to wit or satire, but are as solemn
as undertakers. Yet it is not an artificial solemnity, but one
characterised by a keen and profound conception of the moral serious-
ness of life and its meaning. Imperator's temper represents, in its
philanthropic sympathy for man, as nearly as anything I know, the
character and purposes of Jesus Christ. The main evidence of this
last statement is in records not yet published. There is not a trace of
this in Phinuit. Besides, Imperator is dignified and imperious. His
name describes his character exactly. He insists rigidly, as generally
justified by results, upon conformity with his orders, but his disposition
to charity, in spite of this, for the weaknesses and shortcomings of
man is commensurate with the infinite pathos of human life. In this
Rector follows him, but in the most obsequious obedience and
deference. They address the sitter in the scriptural second person.
Phinuit never did so. Their contrast with G. P. is just as marked,
without in any way identifying him with Phinuit. G. P. is a secular
type, a jolly man of the world, intellectually dignified and refined, but
nothing of Puritanic piety and cant in him. I do not use these terms
in any bad sense, but only to indicate that he does not expose himself
to the criticism of the sceptic who does not like religious phrases.
He is not above a "By Jove," or "confound it," which you would
suppose might shock the sensibilities of Imperator and Rector who
freely affiliate with him. There is not a trace of the solemn and
unctuous seriousness about him, but he is a thoroughly companion-
able clubman, thoroughly human, as Phinuit was in an entirely

Digitized by Google

182

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

different way. He has the intellectual refinement of Imperator and
Rector without their piety and unction, and all the humour without
any of the vulgarity of Phinuit. He stands midway in character,
as he does in history, between Phinuit and Imperator with Rector.
But whatever we may think of these personalities they are in all their
distinctness and reality just what makes the individuality of different
persons in real life, and the parts they play are carried out with the
same invariable consistency and pertinence to their claims that we
observe among living men in the everyday affairs of actual thought
and conduct. These are not telepathic phenomena. They do not in
the least represent acquisitions from the minds of the sitters, but are
the characteristics of independent intelligences, and far more conceiv-
able on that hypothesis than on any other, as the farther development
of the argument will show.

I leave these traits just described to be studied in the record by
the reader and without further comment. But I wish to emphasise
the fact that only those who have made themselves familiar in some
way with the Piper phenomena, and who have very closely investigated
the internal connections and disconnections of the communications,
representative of these mental and moral distinctions of personality,
can appreciate the second aspect of this dramatic, play, upon which I
intend to concentrate the most of my attention. I simply suspend
judgment on any conclusion that may be considered from the point of
view represented by the personal characteristics of the parties just
described, and turn attention upon the facts in the record that both
illustrate their peculiarities in it, and indicate a play of personality
involving far more than their individualities and complicated with
those of other communicators. This greatly enriches the argument.

This aspect of dramatic play is particularly noticeable and
interesting in my first sitting (pp. 184-190). I shall examine this
feature of the case very fully in this sitting, because it is the one
instance of general confusion which would have led me to discredit
the spiritistic nature of the phenomena, had I stopped short at that
sitting, in which I did not discover the dramatic play until later
sittings threw their light upon it. I was not familiar enough with the
modus operandi of the case to understand the nature and importance
of this characteristic, in spite of the care bestowed in three readings
of Dr. Hodgson's Report (Proceedings, Vol. XIII.). But as later
sittings enabled me to understand this dramatic play, it came
into more special notice and prominence in this sitting, and must
receive that careful examination which will show both the internal
unity of this sitting with all others and the dramatic exhibition that
suggests its spiritistic character without the evidential pertinence of
its incidents which is weak. It is all the more interesting to

xxx] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 183

remark this play in the first sitting, because I had to reject it as
worthless evidentially at the time. There was nothing in the whole
sitting, except some of the statements of my brother Charles near the
close, that I felt could possess any claims to being either telepathic or
spiritistic. I afterwards learned that some names and statements were
pertinent that I had rejected. But within my knowledge at the time
and without the light of later experiments I had to treat the sitting
very much as Dr. Weir Mitchell, Professor Peirce, and Professor
Norton were disposed to treat their single experiments (Proceedings,
Vol. XIII., pp. 460-462, 482-3, 525-6), except that the sitting
effectually excluded illusion and suggestion from the explanation of the
phenomena, and I had gone especially to test these hypotheses. But
it did not impress me as doing more than this. It appeared only as a
mass of confusion that had no other intelligible feature in it than an
attempt to find out who I was and to determine who should be the
communicators, as was quite natural under the conditions. But
these very facts enhance the interest that attaches to the study of
the dramatic play in it.

It will be important to remark by way of introduction that this
dramatic play of personality takes two different forms of a general
character. One is a dramatic adjustment to various situations in the
connections between a terrestrial and a supposed transcendental world,
and the other is a dramatic interplay between the personalities in this
transcendental world. Both may have distinct aspects, an evidential
and a non- evidential. The non-evidential consists in the play that
produces statements and incidents which are conceivably explicable
by secondary personality. The evidential play consists in those
instances which reflect both the separateness of independent person-
alities and the transmission of data not referable to the experience
either of Mrs. Piper or the alleged personality intermediating the
communication. The latter is the more important and might well
claim an independent value. The former, however, may have no other
value than external consistency with the main hypothesis, confirming
what we should logically infer from it.

But there must be no misunderstanding the importance which
I attach to this discussion of dramatic play. Though distinguishing
between the evidential and non-evidential aspects of it, I shall not
claim for any of it an independent value for the spiritistic theory, but
use the phenomenon only as a verification of an hypothesis suggested
on other grounds. In every form it is extremely useful for determining
the limitations of telepathy as this is known or supposed experi-
mentally, and hence for that purpose I need not distinguish nicely
between the evidential and the non-evidential illustrations of the
process. Not to encumber myself, however, with the difficulties o

184 J* H. Hydop, PhD. \ [part

making out an independent evidential case on the ground of dramatic
play, I am willing for argument's sake to accord it no other importance
than the confirmation of the hypothesis necessary to account for the
evidence of personal identity. Hence the only vantage ground that
I reserve for myself is the objective facts in the lives of the com-
municators, leaving a margin for individual opinion in regard to this
dramatic play, in those who have not had the personal experience of a
series of sittings and the study of the data which such experiments
elicit. I am confident, however, that the dramatic play will be
appreciated at a high value by all who take the pains to understand it
in its details, even though they are not tempted with the conviction
that the spiritistic theory is the correct one. My object, not being
one to proselytise or to convince others that spiritism is necessarily
true, is attained if I can only secure the admission that this hypothesis
is to be reckoned with in the problem instead of ridiculed without
consideration. I can well afford, therefore, to make a chivalrous
concession of the argument from dramatic play to those who are so
infected with the generalities of secondary personality that they will
not take the pains to distinguish the differences. Hence it is with
this concessive mood in view that I examine so carefully the least
evidential sitting in the record, partly in deference to the condemnation
which I had to pronounce upon it evidentially and partly as a reproach
to those who were so ready to indulge in negative opinions after but
a single sitting and who would not admit the a priori difficulties which
are patent on the face of the problem. The evidential illustrations
of it outside the first sitting will be so much gain for the spiritistic
hypothesis, though I need not accord them more than the function of
realising what we must expect of the supposition advanced to account
for personal identity.

The usual preliminaries which characterise the Imperator regime
are conducted, as generally, by Rector in this first sitting. The record
will indicate this clearly. The first incident of interest is the remark
of Rector that G. P. is coming. Then between sentences that repre-
sent some of G. P.'s thoughts and some of Rector's, there is a state-
ment that he will leave G. P. to answer questions, that is to do the
writing in the communications. Then G. P. immediately " steps in "
and addresses Dr. Hodgson in the usual way after Rector bids us
"good-bye," having said that he must give his attention to another
" light " present (a remark whose significance was not explained and
that is not intelligible to me). The change of personality is marked
by two features. There is first the change from the scriptural to the
ordinary use of the personal pronoun, Rector using the former and
G. P. the latter. Second, there is the entirely unconventional, free

Digitized by Google

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 185

and easy manner of G. P.'s mode of address, which is an invariable
index of his personality. It is the use of the pronoun that enables us
to distinguish in the messages of Rector, after saying that G. P. was
coming, the influence of Rector's thoughts on the communications.
But it is Rector still that dominates and actually explains the purpose
of G. P.'s presence. But whether we choose to attach any value to this
or not, it is clear that the personality is changed when Rector abandons
the "machine" and leaves the writing to G. P. This G. P. now
carries on a conversation with Dr. Hodgson after making a reference to
a desire to see who has come to greet him, meaning evidently myself,
and goes on to speak of things about his brother. This has no
relevancy to me, and bears no characteristic of telepathy from any
one, certainly not from me. The whole passage was absolutely unin-
telligible to me, but was clear to Dr. Hodgson, though it represents no
intelligible telepathic content This aside, however, as we may assume
that it is really telepathic, yet it is absurd on the part of the
telepathic subject to go at any other task than the one for which
this sitting was arranged. Why direct its energies to Dr. Hodgson
when it knew, or ought to have known, that I was the person to deal
with, a fact that is acknowledged in the curiosity to see who had come
to greet him t All that followed, relevant to Dr. Hodgson, is a piece
of nonsense, supposing that the telepathic subject or percipient
has any discriminative power at all. The telepathic percipient is
there by supposition to deal with me and not with Dr. Hodgson, and
if it is the victim of mechanical methods of procedure why does this
characteristic not appear constantly instead of the intelligent adapta-
tion to a situation that betrays just what we should expect on the
spiritistic hypothesis. The scene is realistic and expressive of a super-
sensible situation and independent intelligence carrying on processes
wholly distinct from the attempt to acquire facts from the sitter.

This play is deepened in the immediate order for Dr. Hodgson to
leave the room for a minute. The representation is that there is a
lady who wishes to speak with him, and on his leaving the attention is
directed to me.

Now on any telepathic hypothesis, involving the assumption that
Dr. Hodgson was a disturbing influence, his departure ought to have
been followed by clearer communications and access to my memories.
But this was not the case ! The messages at once became exceedingly
confused, contrasting with what they had been up to this point.

Much of the confusion was due to the necessity of repeating the
written words because I was not familiar with the automatic script.
But this is appreciated from the outset, either as if the supposed
telepathy was not hindered by my being a stranger, which contradicts
with the confusion, or as if the situation was as real as it is represented

Digitized by Google

186

/. H. Hyalop, PLD.

[part

When Dr. Hodgson returns the conversation which goes on with him
is perfectly intelligent, and so is the attempt to meet the difficulties
under which I must decipher the writing. Finally, in reply to an
appeal by Dr. Hodgson for his remaining, G. P. yields with reluctance
and only after the explanation that the difficulty occasioned by Dr.
Hodgson's presence is due to the attendance of the latter's friends.
But G. P. says that he can prevent confusion only on condition that
he be able to keep away these friends.

A long series of communications follows with a number of
pertinent names and suggestive indications of relationship, though in
spite of Dr. Hodgson's absence they are confused almost beyond
tolerance. But Dr. Hodgson returns just before my brother dis-
appears, and then occurs a most interesting statement by G. P., who
stopped writing messages from my friends and explained that the
confusion was due to the presence of three persons who were all trying
to speak to me at once, and a lady is allowed to have her trial after
G. P. grants Dr. Hodgson's request to remain. This lady claims to be
my mother, and in spite of Dr. Hodgson's presence, which is presum-
ably disturbing, she delivers a series of communications that are as false
and irrelevant to both of us as they are clear. They were perfectly free
from confusion and without hesitancy in proper names. I repudiated
the pertinence of her statements, but it did not alter her assurance that
she was right and that I was her son. This is telepathy ! I reject it
a second time, and am met with the same persistence. I do it a third
time and G. P. expresses his ignorance entirely, indicating that he is
merely telling me what he hears, this not being from my mind at
all ! Now, if Dr. Hodgson's presence is disturbing, how is it that
other minds in the world are not disturbing when the telepathy is at a
distance ?

The explanatory interruption in response to Dr. Hodgson's
question involves a reference to me in the third person, as the
communicator's friend, and is followed by a statement directed to
Dr. Hodgson in the second person, all explaining the difficulties
of the situation which was understood by neither of us until the
issue made it clear. But G. P.'s appreciation of the case on my
side, and the difficulties with which he had to contend on his side,
is a most interesting feature of it at this point, as it recognises the
desire that I shall " hear " him, assuming that I shall have my
difficulty with the reading when the fact is that I cannot understand
the messages, while he apologises for the confusion by telling Dr.
Hodgson that he cannot "half hear" when he is present. He begs
him to retire, and then explains to me the reason for his confusion,
this being the simultaneous talking of two spirits, one of them represent-
ing what is in my mind and the other not ! ! This is then followed by

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 187

an appeal to the communicator, apparently, to come and listen and
a message is begun which is suddenly interrupted with the remark
addressed to some one on the other side to help him keep the communi-
cator's thought clear. This is neither taken from my mind nor directed
to me, the whole process being absurd and unnecessary on the telepathic,
and quite possible or probable on the spiritistic.

Bat the passage beginning with the explanation to Dr. Hodgson is
an interlocution in which A., speaking to B. about C, speaks correctly of
D. as B.'s friend, while explaining his own ignorance as to its being an
assured fact, giving this as a reason for allowing the confusion to go on
until D. can be the judge of what is correct. Immediately he asks D.
in the proper grammatical form to listen to him while he also asks C. to
retire for a reason that is plausible on the supposition that some one
is present who should be excluded, but which is not so on any other
assumption. This is the play of an individual mind in a situation
such as the present is described to be. The mental synthesis is neither
Dr. Hodgson's nor mine, so that if we are to give any unity to the
whole affair nothing is more evident than the insufficiency of telepathy
to account for it. But passing this by as uncertain, it is sufficient to
remark that this independent interruption of the communication, the
evident intelligence of it, and the peculiar logical unity and charac-
teristic fitness of it to the situation, are consistent and suggestive of
spirit action, and are so much so, that it will require the most extra-
ordinary supposition of secondary personality to supplant it. The
interplay and adjustment to an exceedingly complex situation that
follows, and that is wholly superfluous on the telepathic access, which
has already shown its admission to the desired reservoir, is past
all praise for pertinent appearance of the spiritistic. The dismissal
of Dr. Hodgson, consistent with the whole history of the Piper
case, the explanation of the confusion that is consistent with the
ignorance of my identity and with the confusion immediately
preceding, and the disappearance of the lady after my insistence that
she was an intruder, to be immediately followed by that remarkable
suggestion to the communicator claiming to be my brother that he
come closer to listen, and then, as if the greater proximity to material
conditions effected an unconscious state, to be prodded and kept clear
(Cf. Experiments in Hypnosis, p. 635), are all a part of a complex whole
that is apparently incomprehensible on any other supposition than that
it is real. This is no freak of telepathy, as the data necessary to make
that explanation relevant are wholly wanting. There is nothing
representing such a situation in our minds. We may resort to
secondary personality and its fabrications, as all scientific minds should
do if phenomena indicative of personal identity were not present, but
assuming that the business of the medium's subliminal in these

188

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

experiments is telepathic, this acting is absolutely superfluous and only
complicates what might be kept simple, except as spiritistic realism
determines complications which are not of the medium's own making.

From the point at which I indicate that the lady claiming to be
my mother is an intruder, to the close of the sitting, there is no inter-
ruption that is not intelligible on the natural interpretation of the
case, but the communications proceed, such as they are, with desirable
smoothness and unity, except that it requires the light of later sittings
to discover this unity and exclusion of foreign intrusion. But in the
effort to get this condition and to secure the right communicators, the
dramatic play of personality coincides with just such a situation as my
precautions must create on the spiritistic theory. In this situation we
should most naturally expect confusion and interference until some-
thing could be ascertained, in some way, regarding my identity, and
the legitimate reason obtained for shutting out all impertinent com-
municators. From the telepathic hypothesis the play gets neither
unity nor rationality in its confusion. We should have to combine
with that theory a number of others quite as large and quite as
wanting in evidential support in order even to obtain a proximate
explanation. The spontaneous diversions and apparent incoherences
are a part of an intolerable confusion on the telepathic theory, but of
consistent and intelligible unity on the spiritistic, representing it, as it
must be, in the form of communication under difficulties.

The close of the sitting was marked by an incident of some interest
in this very connection. Dr. Hodgson remarked that we should have
to go, saying this to G. P., and he replies: "Wait until I get
[Imperator] to take this young man away." I then arose from my
chair and walked past Mrs. Piper to the other side of the room, when
the hand wrote : " He walked right in front of him. Why does he do
this ? " This was followed by a few more communications from my
brother, which were suddenly interrupted by G. P.'s remarks to Dr.
Hodgson that he hoped to " get the lady clear again." All the rest
explains itself. But this play is not that of telepathy, as I did not
know or think I was walking in front of a " spirit !" I might very well
be asked by the secondary personality why I had walked as I did.
But if we attributed to telepathy the knowledge of my walking
as I did, two insuperable objections arise to this supposition.
First, this quick access to my consciousness is in flat contradiction
with the whole sitting and its dramatic play, which are represented
as conditions involving great difficulties, and the confusion supports
this beyond question. Second, the statement that I walked in front
of a spirit was not of a fact in my mind. Then, again, why, if tele-
pathy is the process, does G. P. " hope to get the lady clear again " ?
If he refers to the lady who claimed to be my mother and was not this,

xxl] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 189

not only have I shut her out definitely and thus precluded all excuse for
considering her again, except on the supposition that, as a spirit, G. P.
imagines the difficulty to be in a lack of clearness ; but also telepathy,
after having gotten the pertinent names for communicators, ought to
be able to tell that the names which have no application to me are
irrelevant, especially after I have repudiated them I There is therefore
an internal contradiction in the telepathic hypothesis at this point. It
has the power to get the right names and incidents and none to dis-
tinguish and to prevent the giving of false ones, though this weakness
is not specially discernible in later sittings ! It knows enough to be
right, but insists on doing the wrong which it does not know enough
to prevent ! On the other hand, if he refers to my real mother, all
the facts were clear enough in my memory and active consciousness at
the time to remove all excuses about her not being clear.

My notes call attention (p. 362) to another feature of this
dramatic play in which the communicators are the actors rather than
the trance personalities in connection with them. I shall not examine
it at length at present, as the notes ought to suffice. But I shall
allude to one or two accidents of it. The main feature of it is the
fact that I had supposed there was absolutely no trace of my father in
it, nor of anyone else in the family except my brother and sister. But
the incidents of later sittings show with tolerable distinctness the pro-
bability that both ray father and my uncle are communicators in this
sitting, though they were too confused for me to discover or suspect it
at the time. One of the facts, too, represents an automatism on the
part of my father which was not an intended message at all, but just
the remark, absolutely unknown to me as a habit of his in life, that
he would make on the sudden discovery that he had to go out
of doors on some errand. The remark was: "Give me my hat"
(p. 307.) As the various communicators discovered that the sitter
was an interested relative, the play of effort to reach me would
natnrally show just the tendency to dismiss the lady falsely
claiming to be my mother, and to test the qualifications of those
who agreed on my identity to take her place. The confusion then
that prevents me from suspecting any other communicators than
those who succeed in giving their names is just what would occur in
the process of determining who should be allowed to monopolise the
" machine. " My ignorance of the incident about the hat, and the
pertinence of other indefinite incidents, all subject even to the
hypothesis of guessing, and the transition from person to person
without intimation to me, taken with ray unfamiliarity with the
whole affair, writing and all, prevented my suspecting a unity which
later events enable me to give to the sitting very distinctly. The play
is, then, that of several relatives talking all at once into a " telephone *

190

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[PART

which they have suddenly discovered leads to their friends, and
it is allowed to go on until the parties who are managing the
" machine " ascertain who has the ear of the receiver. This becomes
measurably clear before the sitting closes, and the second sitting opens
with a perfectly distinct exclusion of all communicators whatsoever
but my father until the proper interval justifies the admission of
another relative. The action is exactly as if the trance personalities
had discovered my identity and the right of the communicators to
speak, and then shut out disturbing agencies, and with them the con-
fusion that so marks this first sitting and that prevented my suspecting
the identity of more than my brother and sister. But there is nothing
to suggest telepathy in the development of this dramatic play, as its
whole procedure indicates limitations in the trance personalities
that ought not to exist on the telepathic hypothesis with its
suppposed large powers, to say nothing of two true incidents that I
did not know, namely, " Give me my hat," and the name of my father's
sister Mary.

In the first sitting we have found that the whole dramatic play
assumes the character of an attempt to find out who I am and who
shall be permitted to communicate. Now in spite of the doubt in
G. P.'s mind at the close of the sitting regarding the lady whom he
hopes to keep clear, the opening and continuance of the second and all
later sittings presents the appearance of the trance personalities'
having decided, in the time elapsing between the first and second
sitting, who I was and who should communicate. The peculiar dramatic
play of the first sitting, therefore, is abandoned and the communications
of the second are opened at once with the appearance of assurance
that they had found the right communicator, and all intruders are
shut out. Whether the facts are as I have represented them on the
" other side " is not the question. That must always be a matter of
conjecture. But the differences between the dramatic play of the two
sittings can be described in no other language, if they are to be under-
stood in their apparent character at least. Accepting, therefore, the
representation that the trance personalities have in the meantime
assured themselves of my identity and secured a reason for suspending
further experiments in that direction, we can easily understand the
change of dramatic play which is exhibited in this second and all later
sittings, and the assurance with which this second sitting starts out in
the recognition of the right communicator. The assumptions which we
have to make regarding the dramatic play in this situation are only
the difficulties of the communication itself, and we find that the results
conform to this conception of the case. But the dramatic play of the
first sitting changes its character in the later sittings according to this

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 191

very idea of the situation. It now takes the form of a change of
communicators with only such a part in it of the trance personalities
as either the change and intervals may indicate, or as the conditions
of communication necessitating a change may prompt or render
opportune.

It appears that communicators cannot long stand contact with
material conditions, and must retire from the " machine " for a respite,
to use the language of the sittings, which can be done on any
theory. In the interval of this change from one communicator to
another a sentence is often thrown in that is wholly irrelevant to the
message, whether this sentence comes from the communicator or from
the amanuensis. This may even be true of interruptions in the com-
munications from the same personality. This characteristic often
determines both the confusion and the dramatic play, and unless we
perceive this fact we shall lose a large part of the significance of the
Piper phenomena as a whole.

The first part of the dramatic play in the second sitting occurs
between the trance personalities after the usual greetings, and is indi-
cated in statements that inform the sitter of the coming communicator.
There is the representation of excitement in the hand of the medium
and the written order for calm. The answer, "Yes, I will," by the com-
municator is not a message to me, but an automatism of the " machine "
indicating an interlocution going on with the parties in the transcen-
dental world. Immediately the communications begin, and are inter-
rupted only by language that first indicates disturbance, namely, " I
want my head clear. I am choking,1' and then the statement, " I am
going ; will come back soon." Without any other intimation the com-
municator changes from my father to my brother, as both name and
content indicate. The language that follows shows that a slight
altercation takes place between my brother and some one who appears
to treat him as an intruder (p. 314). He rather passionately appeals
for permission to speak and gives a reason for it, which evidently
convinces " the powers that be/' for they allow him to communicate.
In the midst of this Rector suddenly intromits the statement, after a
little delay, " Listen, friend, have patience with me," and then, as if
in explanation to me or Dr. Hodgson, " Imperator is here, and we
will keep them quite calm." From my standpoint there is no excuse
for any of these diversions from the communications. There is no
apparent reason for the altercation with my brother in the telepathic
theory of the case. He had been a welcome communicator the day
before, and telepathy, by supposition, had admitted him as a possible
communicator. Why not proceed with him to-day as before? Nor
is there any trace of disturbance that makes it apparent that Rector s
remark just quoted is called for. Both passages represent a situation

Digitized by Google

192

J. H. Hydop, Ph-D.

[part

wholly ouside the mind of the sitter and without excuse from tele-
pathy. One can imagine that the altercation was in favour of my
"uncle Charles," especially as my brother and my uncle here pass
under the same name. The ready submission of the objector to my
brother rather indicates the discovery of a mistake. This, of course,
is purely speculative, but I indulge this mood for the moment to make
intelligible what cannot be understood from the standpoint of either
telepathy or secondary personality. Its whole character imitates some
intelligent purpose so obtrusively that it must get the credit of this
idea on any theory whatsoever, and we can appreciate it only by
representing the process as one beyond the mind of the sitter and
imitative, at least, of a reality which is certainly expressible in
spiritistic terms.

This dramatic play takes on a realistic character of another kind in
the messages which follow. My notes show that I have had some
difficulty in deciding whether all of them come from one communicator,
my uncle, or a part of them, the first part, from my father. The
fact that indicates the difficulty is the confusion occurring at one point
in the passage which is pertinent to my uncle in all but one statement.
After the indication of his inability to remain longer in the words,
" Mother, mother, going," etc., my father appears and attempts
to continue communications regarding this uncle, though indicating
that it is he, and not my uncle, that is doing it There is a distinct and
natural allusion to the statement a little earlier that he would be back
soon. The interesting part of the communication is the fact that
between the two there seems to be a concerted effort to indicate
the presence and identity of my uncle who had died so recently. Both
show the same natural solicitude for the comfort of my aunt, the wife
of this uncle and sister of my father, her Christian name being correctly
given. But this allusion of father to the uncle contains a train of
thought not at all characteristic of the uncle and soon reverts to affairs
not related to my uncle at all. It starts out, however, with the
intelligent recognition of what was clearly enough indicated by the
content of my uncle's message, though this uncle did not attempt
his own name.

Now the death of my uncle was such as to give the content of his
communications some interest. He was injured by an accident on the
railway, and died a few hours afterwards. I learned accidentally
that the allusion to my aunt's discouragement and despair had more
specific importance than usual. I treated it at the time as indicating
the natural sorrow that attends such a bereavement, but did not know
or suspect that this grief was so near a dangerous result to herself.
Hence the interest shown by both communicators in trying to assuage
sorrow was especially natural under the circumstances and shows

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 193

some indications of the recognition that there were special reasons
for speaking of my nncle. On the telepathic hypothesis there is no
reason for my father to speak in this way of the matter, as there was
nothing specific in my memory associated with the death of this uncle.
The change of communicator usually results in a change of matter in
the messages pertinent to the identity of the communicator from the
standpoint of the sitter. But here the natural sympathy of the
communicator with his sister in her sorrow suggests an independent
intelligence. That is to say, we have a dramatic play in this case
representing two personalities dealing with the same content with
just the modification that suits their personal relations to the case,
while my father makes the right suggestion in speaking of his sisters
as " the girls," and in this plural recognises the misfortune which his
other sister, Nannie, had met just a month earlier in the loss of her
husband almost as suddenly as the sister Eliza referred to in the
communications. The dramatic play has thus a psychological unity
in diversity corresponding to the situation itself, and not correlated
with any memories that are associated in my mind.

This dramatic play occurs in a still more interesting form when
this nncle appears the second time (p. 317). The message began :

*' What can I do to make Eliza feel that I am not dead ? (S. : Tell us
who are with you, and that will help Eliza.) Yes, all, you shall know
each one in her. You are not Robertson [?] are you ? (R. H. : Is that
Robertson ? ) You are not George are you? (S : No, I am not George.)
(R. H. : I am not. . .) No, James, I know you very well, but this other
one. . . did you know the boys. . . do you know me ? "

At the time I took the "Robertson" to be a mistake for my
brother Robert. But the last sentence of the passage indicated clearly
that the mention of my aunt was by my uncle, and that " Robertson "
was a reference to father, to know if I was " Robert's son." My
father's name was Robert and my uncle always called him this.
(Cf. reference to " Robertson " in the first sitting p. 310). The
question, then, "You are not Robertson (Robert's son) are you?" and
" You are not George, are you ? " George being the name of my oldest
brother, reveal the communicator's discovery that Dr. Hodgson is a
stranger. My reply shows that I supposed the question expressed
a doubt about myself and not as directed to Dr. Hodgson. The
response then that followed my statement and that of Dr. Hodgson,
" No, James, I know you, but this other one. . . did he
know the boys? . . do you know me?" becomes wonderfully
pertinent and significant. My uncle never knew or heard of Dr.
Hodgson and it would be natural enough for him to wonder whether
my brother George happened to be with me, though telepathy ought to
have corrected any such impression. Nor did Dr. Hodgson know

Digitized by Gcfode

194

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[part

anything of my uncle. The death of this uncle had also been concealed
from Dr. Hodgson. The whole situation, therefore, was a perfectly
natural one, and the dramatic play has all the verisimilitude of
reality in it.

The absurdity of telepathy in this case ought to be apparent at a
glance. After twelve years' work and acquaintance with Dr. Hodgson
Mrs. Piper's subliminal does not know him, but queries whether he m
not my brother George ! And this in spite of the fact that he is
constantly recognised by Rector and G. P., and is known by Mrs,
Piper's supraliminal ! Moreover, telepathy with its supposed capacities
for discrimination in my memory ought never to make such a mistake!
but should know at once that Dr. Hodgson was not my brother. His
name should have been gotten from my memory as readily as that of my
brother and his relation to me. But instead of this we have that plaj
of real persons and display of ignorance which is absurd on the telepathic
theory. Nor will it do to say that its powers united with second&n
personality were great enough to discover the facts and merely to simu
late this ignorance, as the same power should discover the danger tc
which it is exposed in such an attempt at deception. The telepathic
infinity in this case runs into the finite and leaves itself without anj
defence, as it becomes a tissue of contradictions. Notice the inter
locutions in the use of the pronoun "you." The only natural and
rational interpretation is the spiritistic theory, which has absolutely no
contradictions in it, but represents both the natural unity and consis-
tency of the phenomena, as well as an explanation in terms of tbe
known laws of consciousness.

This remarkable passage is followed by some clear communications
from my father which terminate in a lapse into unconsciousness and a
confusion such as tend to follow any period of sustained communica
tion. This is indicated by the reference to the trance personalities
and by the expressed desire for me to wait until he returna Th<
language is : " In a short time they tell me I will be able to recall
everything . . recall everything I ever did. . . You could bf
. . my . . does not . . I will have to go for a moment, waii
for me." Then at his disappearance Rector takes up the time com
municating in regard to a little girl for the purpose of finding hei
mother (p. 319). The incident has absolutely no reference to me, and
does not even pretend to have it. This claim would have been nc
more inconsistent and irrelevant than the attempt in the first sitting
to connect a lady with me who had no relation to me at all. There
might even have been some excuse for palming off a little girl on me,
as my sister was a little girl when she died and her existence was a
matter of memory. The incident, therefore, whether true or false, is
not telepathic, either from my standpoint or from that of the trance

Digitized by Google

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 195

personality. It is precisely what should take place on the spiritistic
theory, the play of personality being perfectly natural at this juncture.
It is all the more interesting in connection with my father's admonition
to wait for him, as if the communicator feared that I might not wait
while he went away " to recover his breath," so to speak. The assump-
tion that I might not remain is a natural one when we consider the
uniform difference between the conception of time as felt by communi-
cators and that which the sitter knows. The reasons for this are only
open to conjecture and cannot be made any part of the explanation of
the phenomena. But the illusion on the part of communicator regard-
ing my situation and freedom from the difficulties that he experiences
in attempting to communicate is inexcusable on the telepathic
hypothesis. That capacity should know its own conditions and my
exemption from perturbing circumstances, and be as careful to be right
as it is in the incidents by which it reproduces personal identity. A
discarnate spirit, unfamiliar as my father was with experiments of this
kind, or merely conscious that the difficulties in communication existed
on oar side, though not tending to produce anything like asphyxiation,
might very well suppose, especially under syncope of any form, that I
might not wait for his return. But there is no excuse for telepathy to
palm off on me conditions and expectations that it should know very
well were not true.

The third sitting contains few instances of this dramatic play
which the reader cannot study sufficiently and intelligently for him-
self. But two of them are interesting enough for remark.

The first of these is connected with my question to know the
trouble when my father passed out (p. 327). I had in mind the securing
of information in regard to the nature of the disease from which father
thought he suffered. He had thought it catarrh, and we knew it was
probaby cancer of the larynx. But the point of interest here is the
interpretation put on my question, which is adverse to what was in my
mind, and the peculiar emotional appreciation indicated when I
explained my use of the word " trouble." He naturally enough, but
in contradiction with telepathy of any sort, supposed that " trouble "
referred to some personal differences between us, and correctly indicated
his doubt about the existence of any such difficulties. Then on my
correction of the interpretation, there was a second contradiction with
telepathy in his assumption that I was asking for the events that
occurred in the moments of death, when I said that I meant " sick-
ness/ though his interpretation was again the proper one when we
consider the rational meaning of the temporal clause in my question.
Then, with this understanding of my desire, the attempt to narrate the
incidents of that supreme moment is accompanied by a most interesting
interlocution between my father and Rector with interjected remarks

196

J. H. Hyalop, PLD.

[part

to me also by Rector explanatory of actions on the " other side," of
which I could have no knowledge. First, Rector explains that father
has taken off the condition which he is trying to describe, apparently
asks me a question as to " what was meant by his eyes," and then says
to the communicator " speak plainly." The confusion that follows is
indicated by Rector's farther explanation of the situation and then a
statement of what the communicator's action is, saying: "He
places his hand over his . . heart . . beat," then by Rectors
reaching to touch Dr. Hodgson, as if in that way he could aid the
communicator, who now goes on with some clearness for a time, when
he disappears again, and Rector takes up the incident of the little
girl mentioned in the previous sitting (p. 330) just as the change
takes place to my brother as a communicator, and Rector forewarns me
of the fact. The inapplicability of telepathy to all this ought to be
self-evident from the statement of the facts, as it is the play of an
independent intelligence and memory relating to events already on
record in the previous sitting and pertinent to Dr. Hodgson, though
not matter of knowledge to him, and the reference immediately
changes to me in the announcement of my brother. The realism of
this is apparent.

The next illustration of this play is in connection with a
phenomenon which resembles ordinary automatism, and with a
recognition of the trance personality of some disturbance in the process
of communication. Immediately following a perfectly clear message
from my father, and wholly irrelevant to it, was written out the
question : " Do you hear her sing ? " (p. 332). This was repeated in
response to a statement by Dr. Hodgson, "No, the words are not
clear, Rector." Then Rector said, after Dr. Hodgson's "No" to
the repeated question : " Friend, there is something and we will be
obliged to ask thee to move." I changed my position, and was at
once asked to return. I had alluded to my sister Annie a few
minutes before and I took the reference to singing to be to her.
But whether correct or not, the matter of interest is Rector's
discovery of the incoherence and irrelevancy of the message, which
was not conceived by me as necessarily such, as I knew the frequent
and sudden changes in the communications and the equally frequent
allusions to events, intelligible or unintelligible, on the "other side."
I recognised the irrelevancy of the question to the import of the
previous message, but was not confused as to its possible meaning
in reference to the previous allusion to my sister. Hence there is
no excuse on the telepathic hypothesis for this procedure, and similar
incoherences on other occasions did not prompt any such interruptions
on the part of the trance personality. We can admit telepathy only
on the supposition that it discovers my recognition of the confusion in

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 197

connection with father's message. But this would prove too much, for
the reason that there is not a single other interference like this when I
was far more confused as to the meaning of the message than I was
at this time, while the statement of Rector suggests that there was a
disturbance in the " machine " (Cf. p. 332). Moreover, telepathy would
involve the supposition that there was an influence upon the communi-
cations from my supraliminal states for which there is not one iota
of evidence in this record, nor in any study and watching for this
effect which I made purposely throughout the sittings. We may
explain this automatism as we please, but it is not telepathic, though
any secondary personality that we may suppose could have successfully
interpreted the question as referring to actual singing on the part of
my sister, as often illustrated in pseudo-spiritism, instead of deliberately
indicating by its treatment of the incident that it was nothing of the
kind, but mere disturbance in the " machine."

In the last of the first series of sittings the first noticeable feature
of this dramatic play is the unusual appearance of Imperator and his
statement of the reason for preceding Rector. The necessity for
restoring the " light," as the medium is called, is a queer trick to *be
played by a telepathic subject or percipient ! But immediately Rector
takes Imperator's place and the communications begin (p. 335). After
a few messages, Rector says, as if directing a person where to stand,
"Speak clearly, sir. Come over here." The communicator answers,
" Yes," as if indicating the intention to obey, and then accosts Dr.
Hodgson with the question : " Are you with James 1 " On Dr.
Hodgson's affirmative reply, my father responds with an evident and
intelligent allusion to the understanding that he was to communicate
with Dr. Hodgson in my absence. He said : " Well, will you help
me to return later if I wish to return ? If so, I will try and free my
mind now." On Dr. Hodgson's favourable answer, he went on :
14 Well, I will not feel troubled then, because I have no further talk
with him now," etc. The appreciation of the situation is perfect here.
It represents the consciousness of the fact that this is the last chance,
for the present at least, of a personal interview, and his satisfaction
with the promise to continue the attempt to prove his identity. This
and the direction of Rector where to stand are realism and are not
telepathic, no matter how we endeavour to explain them.

The messages then continue smoothly for a moment when the
strange colloquy takes place, explaining that the communicator speaks
too fast, and indicating also that my father had said all he wished.
Rector says in the midst of a communication : " He speaks too
rapidly,, fearing he may forget something," and there follows the
broken sentence, " . . had said all I wished," as if indicating to
Rector the latter's misunderstanding of the situation, while in fact

198

J. H. Hydop, PLD.

[part

showing his consciousness of some disturbance and failure to
appreciate the situation as Rector explained it to us. This is
a perfectly intelligible situation, exhibiting all the independent
intelligence that any one can imagine and without a trace of excuse
from telepathy.

The next piece of dramatic playing is found in the communication
I made to my father (p. 339). I had kept him sending messages to me
without reciprocating, as I was avoiding every form of suggestion.
But I here resolved to reveal myself, and at the same time try to
elicit some evidences of his identity as connected with his religious life.
I wrote out a long passage to be read to the hand and in it explained
why I had not asked many questions. But before reading it, Dr.
Hodgson explained to Rector what I wished to do. Rector wrote out
in response that the letter would have to be repeated for the reason
that my father could get the statements only in fragments. This was
understood, and I began when the permission was given. The passage
in which I stated the reason for this work and summarised our long
correspondence, after my apostasy from orthodoxy, was designed to
call out some evidence of his identity in the direction that was the most
important aspect of his life. His reply to the first part of the
communication was correctly appreciative and representative of an
actual fact in our conversation on this subject. But when I had
read the passage alluding to what I had always told him, Rector,
catching the spirit of it, at once stopped listening and wrote,
" Perfectly. Yes. That is surely James." The dramatic feature of
this can be understood only in connection with four facts. (1) The
appreciation of the sentiment by Rector; (2) The recollection of
what Rector said about the necessity of repeating the communication ;
(3) The fact that the reply of father is made to Rector and not to
me, indicating that he understood it and recognised in it exactly what
he knew of me in our correspondence ; (4) The implied uncertainty
as to my identity until the present moment, which ought not to have
occurred on the hypothesis of telepathy. The representation is that
of a scene on the " other side," and not of events acquired from my
memory. Rector's action is that of an intelligence that fears, after
reminding us of the necessity of repeating the message to my father,
that its importance will not be appreciated for lack of getting it, and
we can imagine that he asks, as it were, " Do you hear that ? " and
gets the answer which he writes down, though it is not directly
addressed to me.

The remaining features of this sitting explain themselves to the
reader and do not require analysis. Their intelligent appreciation of
the situation, created partly by my communication and partly by the
fact that it was the last sitting I was to have at that time, can be

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 199

perceived without discussing it. What it implies about the difficulties
of telepathy is apparent, whatever else we may have to entertain to
explain it.

The next five sittings, which were conducted for me by Dr.
Hodgson while I remained in New York, show this dramatic play of
personality in a peculiar and pertinent form. The understanding at
the beginning of my sitting on 26th of December (1898) was that Dr.
Hodgson should receive communications for me. The object was to
shut out direct thought-transference. The first part of the sitting
was taken up, as usual, with the business part of the affair with the
trance personalities, in which we can study this dramatic play with
great interest for its absolute exclusion of telepathy and the repre-
sentation of independent intelligence. But after completing arrange-
ments for future sittings, Rector remarks that if Dr. Hodgson has
nothing further to ask he will bring my father to communicate, and
there at once begins a curious feature of the sitting and an exceed-
ingly interesting aspect of the dramatic play. Dr. Hodgson expresses
his readiness, and the drama begins. Rector holds the hand out in
space, pointing to tho communicator, apparently conversing with him,
and then writes ; " No, he is not .... but it is his friend
. . . very well. No, not James, but Hodgson. Yes. Come."
Dr. Hodgson gets the package, whose purpose has been explained,
but which ostensibly is intended to influence the "holding of the
spirit " and its attention, and Rector writes : " Give it me, friend."
The delay on Dr. Hodgson's part is filled in by Rector's monition
to the communicator: "Be patient, kindly," and after Dr. Hodgson
has placed the spectacle case on the table, my father indicates the
proper appreciation of the situation and says: "Yes, friend, I am
pleased to meet you, I wish to speak to James, but I understand he is
not here, but sends you in his place. Am I right 1 " Dr. Hodgson
replies in the affirmative, and the communications begin (p. 370).

The interesting feature that follows generally is the use of the pro-
noun referring to me, which is in the third person, and assumes that I
was not present. The whole play is realistic, and it is absurd to suppose
it telepathic, as the very opposite of what my father assumes is the fact
in Dr. Hodgson's mind. Rector knows the correct situation, but it is
superfluous to play a merely dramatic part here when the communica-
tions are to represent facts that cannot by any means be obtained from
Dr. Hodgson's mind, and if they are to be secured from my mind in
New York* the colloquy and explanation by Rector is absurd, and if
assumed to be a conscious or unconscious effort by him to deceive, the
fact contradicts his whole character ever since he appeared wit>
Imperator in charge of Mrs. Piper. The attitude of my father appe

200

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PABT

more puzzling, as it would naturally be supposed that be would
remember the arrangements made and also be able to recognise Dr.
Hodgson again, if his earlier statement that he could see my spirit in
the body had any meaning whatever for recognition. But this
difficulty is explained after all in the statement a little later that he
was a little distance from Dr. Hodgson, but hoped to come nearer
soon (p. 372). Hence in spite of its apparent difficulties the play
becomes consistent enough, even if not altogether intelligible. But it
is clearly not amenable to telepathy from Dr. Hodgson's mind, as there
is a distinct reference to me at various times in the third person,
involving the implication that the communicator was presenting the
facts to another person than to me. There are times, however, during
some of the five sittings when the communicator slips into speaking to
the sitter, Dr. Hodgson, in the second person as if talking to me,
which is still more absurd on the telepathic hypothesis, as the
secondary personality must know better than to mistake Dr. Hodgson
for me. Moreover the play is more natural and explicable on the
spirit theory than any other, as that of secondary personality and
telepathy cannot safely indicate in one breath its complete knowledge
of the arrangements for the present situation and in the next imper-
sonate an ignorance of them that destroys its own pretensions.

There is nothing farther in this first of the five sittings by Dr.
Hodgson to be especially remarked except the interesting colloquy
between Dr. Hodgson and my father in the attempt of the former to
explain to him just what I wanted and what was necessary to prove
his identity. All this explains itself to the reader and does not require
analysis. But the main fact of interest to be remarked in con-
nection with this explanation is the persistency with which my father
in all subsequent sittings sticks to the understanding of the problem
which this explanation gives him. Up to the present one he was
less careful to limit himself to incidents in his life, but showed a
tendency to make non-evidential remarks, and the incidents were such
as merely his own judgment would select without as clear a view of the
problem before him as the explanation made it. His whole attitude
toward Dr. Hodgson is perfectly appreciative of his task, and once
later he alludes to it in terms that unmistakably indicate his memory
of the fact (p. 460). One matter of interest in it is the promise of
Rector to explain the whole case to father in detail, an incident that
helps to sustain the dramatic character of the affair. After the
explanation by Dr. Hodgson begins there is very little of the sitting
that partakes of the nature of evidential communication, but it shows
the completely tete-a-tete nature of the conversation between the two
parties in the drama, and while its extension beyond telepathy goes
without mention, the play of independent intelligence is as real as life

xlx] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 201

and would never be suspected for anything else but for the fact that
the evidence for personal identity is so difficult to obtain in the face of
what we know of secondary personality, which often does so much to
simulate spiritism, though it has not yet reproduced such phenomena
as we have in the Piper case.

In the second sitting of this series this dramatic play takes
another form than is usual in this record (pp. 375-377). It
represents the appearance of a third trance personality, familiar to
other sitters, but having no such specialised functions in my sittings
as Imperator and Rector, at least in the work as it appears to
us. This new trance personality calls himself Doctor. All three
trance personalities appear in the preliminaries to the communications
from my father. Imperator writes first and gives a remarkable prayer
and explains his entrance on that occasion. Rector then appears only
to greet Dr. Hodgson for a brief period, bids farewell, and Rector at
once announces his own return and the communications begin. The
consistency and realistic aspects of these remarkable passages can be
seen by the reader without comment. But there is one point of
interest that must have attention called to it, so that we shall observe
the pertinence of the main characteristic of this dramatic play to the
nature of the communications that follow.

Imperator states that his object is to " restore the light." Rector
examines the situation and says things are "infinitely better/'
Doctor tries the " machine/' and Rector intimates that they wish to
have " Mr. Hyslop," my father, " come closer." Presently Imperator
sends through Rector that " it will be impossible for Him to answer
for Mr. W. this day, as it will necessitate our using too much light for
him, and we must give it for this kind gentleman, viz., Mr. Hyslop."
Here is a series of statements and ideas that represent an organic
unity of purpose and co-operation in spite of the changes of per-
sonality, and the study of the results of the sitting shows a vast
improvement over the first and second sittings. (Cf. Statistical
Summary, p. 119). The whole play when examined in its essential
feature lying below the surface of the record shows this intelligent unity,
and it goes without saying that it is not telepathic, but a representation
of events and conditions in a transcendental world beyond experience.
We may treat it as we please, but it is not the reading of any human
memories relevant to the immediate problem before Dr. Hodgson.

The dramatic play in the communications with my father have the
usual characteristics, with some modifications, or points of special
interest. The first noticeable fact is the impression he has that I am
present He begins addressing me, saying, "Good morning, James,"
(p. 377), and goes on using the second person for some time. He has
forgotten that he is communicating with Dr. Hodgson. But th'

Digitized by Google

202

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[PA^B

dramatic play is interesting. When he mentions the mark near hi
ear which he expected me to recall, Rector interrupts him with til
request : " Tell me, friend, that I may show it to him." There w^a
evidently some special effort required to meet Rector's request, as tia
record shows, for in the attempt some interlocution has to go oi
between Dr. Hodgson and Rector, when all at once Rector stop
Dr. Hodgson's message and writes, " He is saying something. Wai
until I hear it clearly." There immediately follows a confused messa^
regarding a pen and a paper cutter, with a most interesting exhibx
tion of the difficulties involved in the communication. Rector wa-
not sure that he got it rightly. Presently father had to say " Lei
me go a minute and return. I am very blind and begin to fe&
strange." Rector then takes up the interval of a minute or so with -c
statement of his good opinion of father, and promises a very sucoessfuJ
communicator in time. Father returns and discovers for the first time
in this sitting that he is not communicating to me at all. He says :
" Here I am. Yes, I see, you are not really James, but his friend.
Glad I am to know you." From this point, being clearer, he speaks as
if telling his incidents to an intermediary for me. The rest of the
dramatic play in the sitting explains itself, and simply repeats such
characteristics as I have indicated, namely, the intromission of ques-
tions and explanations into the process of communication. But one
incident is worthy of attention because of its length and irrelevance
to any telepathic hypothesis. Dr. Hodgson had prepared to read
one of ray questions and did not know that my father had left the
" machine," when Rector interrupted him with a communication about
Mrs. M., one of the earlier sitters. The matter in this colloquy has no
reference to the issue with my father, but intelligently adjusts itself
to the interval of his departure from the " light " for a respite.

The intromission of irrelevant matter into a message about
Mrs. M. expressed in the automatism : " Yes, it contains my cutter "
(p. 380), and involving interruptions, explanations, cautions, etc.,
and the play of distinct personalities, has a most interesting
analogy in an experience reported by Miss X. (Proceedings, Vol.
VIII., p. 494). Miss X. had only a few minutes before parted from
a friend who had been talking to her about psychical research.
She picked up a shell and holding it to her ear heard in the form of
auditory hallucinations the conversation of the few minutes before in
the apparent voice of her friend, and intromitted into it the expression,
" Are you a vegetarian then ? " She immediately wrote to her friend
telling him the circumstances, and asked him if he was respon-
sible for this irrelevancy. His reply showed that he had met a friend
some minutes after he left her who told him he was dining at a
certain restaurant, and Miss X.'s friend at once asked him if he was a

en.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 203

vegetarian. This remark coincided with the intromission into her
i&Uucinations of the very sentence the gentleman had used. Now this
xvstance is not spiritistic in its contents, but in spite of this fact it
anequi vocally favours independent personalities for the different parts
>f the whole, and affords no relief for telepathy in so far as that would
? liable us to dispense with real distinction of personalities. In this
:ase before us the intromit ted message is traceable to a foreign and
objective source, and represents two personalities instead of one only.
That is to say, in spite of the fact that the intromission, which
indicated its irrevelancy at once, was in the same form as the purely
subjective experience of Miss X., yet it had as a verifiable fact a
personal origin in another subject, and indicates two persons instead of
one. To have found no objective source for it would have left the
incident at the mercy of the explanation of secondary personality.
Bat as it is, we have a distinct illustration of distinct personalities in a
message which might have been interpreted as the product of Miss
X.'s brain, and consequently an example of what we may be entitled to
infer in the Piper case, especially as the dramatic play is so emphati-
cally that of independent intelligence.

It is perhaps hardly a feature of the dramatic play to note in the
third sitting by Dr. Hodgson that there is a singular use of both the
second and third persons in the communications to me, but the
incident is so closely connected with that use that it may be
mentioned as throwing light on the whole affair. Father's messages
begin with a clear conception of the situation, as representing Dr.
Hodgson in the place of myself. He asks pertinently how I am, and
whether Dr. Hodgson has really seen me or only heard from me
" through what we used to call letters " (p. 385). A little later when
he asks in the second person : " Can you recall anything about my
beliefs in God?" he speaks as if he thought he was directly addressing
roe. Bat as he knew from the letter that Dr. Hodgson was reading that
I wanted some answer from him, it is perfectly rational to suppose
that he was still clear as to the situation, but was answering with the
understanding that he was dictating communications to me. There is
a most interesting confirmation of this supposition a little later, and
just after the allusion to the skull cap (p. 387), when he says, " Answer
this for me, James, when you come again," recognising, in spite of the
second person, that I was not present. This interesting incident must
make us cautious about raising objections on the ground of the
mistakes in the identity of the sitter. But immediately Rector inter-
jects a message which purports to be what he knows my father
is trying to communicate, and it represents a pertinent fact, and
then as if suddenly called to get another message exclaims •
11 Wait . . . what is he talking about ? " and then speaks to T.

204

J. E. Hyslop, PLD.

[pun

Hodgson for something to " hold the spirit." This, of course, has it)
vraisemblance to the tricks of ordinary mediums, but as it represent)
the real dramatic play so well, I can refer to it without presuming su
to its origin. But there is not much in this sitting that represents th<
dramatic play in any form not intelligible to every reader. Nor is then
anything in the fourth sitting that demands special comment after whal
has been explained concerning the general action of the play.

In the fifth sitting, however, the incident of the canes indicates
some features of the dramatic play that should be mentioned,
(p. 397). In the attempt to communicate something about a cane,
whose identity I did not know or recognise until I made my investiga
tions in the West, Rector interrupted the writing by movements oi
Mrs. Piper's hand, which I found to be a probable attempt to describe
the uses to which the cane had been put. The details need not be
repeated here, but Rector apparently does not understand the mimic
actions on the " other side." Assuming that the action really repre-
sents references to my father's various habits in the use of the cane,
we can see how absurd it is to suppose telepathy of any kind when the
" control " fails to get the right idea, though he can describe what
he sees and conveys nevertheless the right idea of the communicator.
The representation is that of independent personalities, and shows
how one of them communicates an evidential truth which he does not
understand himself. That is not telepathy, as all the other communica-
tions are consistent with the supposition that the personality writing
them has also the correct ideas of them, but also is able to interpret
them when not otherwise clear. In the present case, however, the
trance personality cannot obtain a simple fact by telepathy, and cannot
interpret rightly the movements in an attempt to describe an event
perfectly intelligible to me and to all who know how that particular
cane was used. It requires, possibly, the supposition of some kind of a
" body " to make the dramatic features of this incident perfectly clear
to our imagination, but as that is a supposition which I cannot
seriously entertain here because of our limitations in making any
statements about a transcendental world intelligible (Cf. p. 290), I
can only represent the action as it is given, and assuming that it is
realistic enough to suggest a spiritistic origin, lay the stress upon its
tallying with the facts as I found them to be in my investigation.
The main point is to see that neither telepathy nor secondary
personality is compatible with the incident. There is a finitude about
Rector's powers here that is not consistent with their range at other
times on any other hypothesis than the spiritistic.

In my last eight sittings this dramatic play is usually not so dis-
tinctive a feature of the communications, except as it is represented

Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 205

irk the change from one communicator to another. The usual alter-
c&tions, colloquies, remarks, explanations, etc., take place between the
communicators and the amanuensis — Rector or other writer, as the
ease may be — on the one hand, and between the amanuensis and the
sitter on the other. If this fact is remembered it will not be necessary,
in urging the argument for the spiritistic theory on the ground of
this dramatic play, to treat it at length in these last sittings. I shall
therefore notice only those exceptional instances of it that the general
reader would not be able to observe so easily as I can, owing to my
familiarity with the facts that make the communications so pertinent
and evidential.

The first of these instances is of a type not found to any extent in
the previous series of sittings. It is the employment of a substitute
for the communicating. This occurs several times in this series.
Occasionally father has given a message that was evidently intended
to do what another had failed to effect. Once my brother Charles
(p. 455) communicates for father, and once my sister Annie (p. 451)
communicates for my cousin Robert McClellan, as the incidents in
each case indicate. Sometimes, too, the communicator represents the
incident that he is telling as having been mentioned to him on the
" other side." All this represents a play of personality that supposes
an entirely new range for telepathy, if it is to be assumed at all.

The first instance is by father when he asks if I " remember a little
bridge we used to cross in going to Church/' and on my assent he adds
that a mother just called my attention to it " (p. 435). This brings in a
pertinent incident that is put into the mouth of another person on the
"other side" for whom it was more natural to mention this bridge than
it was for my father, and it was not associated in my mind with either
one of them more than with the other. This feature is illustrated again
by some statements by my brother Charles (p. 440) while my father
rests a moment. He alluded to my half-sister and to some things that
he says father asked him to say, and remarks that " his voice troubles
him a little when trying to speak/1 a strange statement from the
ordinary point of view, but consistent with what I knew of his illness,
as father had been unable to speak above a whisper for three years
before his death. His conditional clause, "If you are still in the
body, James, " has strange implications in it, and all that is said here
is not telepathy, especially this last quoted statement, because telepathy
must be supposed to know positively that I am in the body. My
sister Annie indicates a similar fact when, in communicating for my
cousin, she speaks of my father knowing the " Lucy " mentioned better
than she does (p. 452). A still clearer instance of the same is brother
Charles's reference to the accident to the chimney, about which he never
knew, and to the fact that he " heard father talking about it to moth

Digitized by Google

206

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[pabi

some time ago 99 (p. 455). But the interesting part of the play is the
innocent and yet fortunate recognition of the communicator that his
acquisition of the facts was from the "other side.'1 If he had
mentioned them as personal recollections the circumstances would have
had to be set down as false, but, fortunately for the spiritistic view,
he rightly refers them to the very persons that would be supposed to
know, and, stranger still, he states that it was father that spoke to
mother about the accident. Mother died fifteen years before the
accident, and father was the only one that could tell her about the
fact, though she knew w,ell enough the existence of the chimney. The
difficulty of telepathy in such a case ought to be apparent. The
whole conception which the incidents represent is that of action in a
transcendental world arranging for the communication of facts more
or less without reference to the person whose knowledge and experience
they were, but with a distinct reference, nevertheless, to the identity
of the proper parties. The organic unity which the facts obtain ia
that of independent intelligences recalling and collecting their own
memories pertinently to the one object of personal identity, and
exhibiting none of the characteristics of telepathy as we know it
experimentally.

I shall give in full one of the best instances of this transcendental
play and references that show how more than one personality is
concerned. It is again the work of my brother Charles, and repre-
sents an exceedingly complex psychological situation (p. 462).

He first gives his name and then alludes to his having been sent
by Imperator to take father's place. Evidently, however, his entrance
had been preceded by a question by Rector to know what my brother
said, as the question, " What is it ? " appears and the phrase, " My
step-sister" comes as an answer, when as an explanation to Rector,
who apparently did not know the situation for the time, he gave his
name and stated on whose authority he came. At once, on being
accepted as persona grata, he says, giving the name of his step-sister,
whom he in fact never knew, "Hettie I did not remember. 99 He
then corrects this to half-sister and explains his error, with an
allusion to the assistance he is getting from Imperator. He then
reports a statement from father, explaining why he has come to
communicate, a remark which at once requires us not to attribute
the facts to the wrong personality. I am then asked if I remember
my uncle James McClellan and "Frank . . . speak ....
Hyslop," the last phrase representing a tendency to fail in completing
the name of my brother, which is effected by Rector's prodding
demand that he speak (Cf. Proceedings, Vol. XIII., p. 464> Phinuit's
order : " Don't go to sleep My brother then remarks correctly
that my brother Frank is still living and says that " father spoke to

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 207

me of him a few minutes ago." The remark calls into notice the fact
that father had a special interest in alluding to this brother, as he was
an invalid at the time of father's death, and my brother Charles never
knew him. Immediately Charles explains father's difficulties in
communicating, and alludes to " Dr. Pierce " as a friend of my " uncle
Clarke " and to the fact that he is still living, thus again introducing
another personality into the play without appropriating the facts
to himself. The allusions to father's war stories and to his injured
leg are similar incidents. They refer to facts that Charles never
knew personally. This continues through a number of instances,
until the name of my sister Lida is given and the reference
is made to father as having greater knowledge of her than himself,
as was true. He also said that father "often speaks of Lucy,"
bat the effort to complete this name failed, while the dramatic
play was heightened by the introduction of my sister Annie, also on
the " other side," to assist him. But both failed, and Rector wrote in
explanation a most remarkable sentence, because it shows beyond
question that he was both unable to read my mind and did not under-
stand whom my brother was trying to name. He said : " I got it all
but the Hyslop." It was Lucy McClellan that my brother was trying
to name, and Rector evidently thought it was "Lucy Hyslop," no such
person existing, and simply inferred from the identity of my brother
that he was endeavouring to give the name of another Hyslop. Hence
he was wholly wrong, as neither I nor my brother would naturally be in
the circumstances. This mistake on the part of Rector was corrected
soon afterwards, as Mrs. Piper was coming out of the trance, when she
uttered the name of "Lucy McClellan," as if the error had been
discovered on the " other side," and a special effort made to correct it.
The difficulties of telepathy in this incident and in the compound play of
personality on the " other side," combined with features of the same
play with this side, ought to be self-evident.

The next and last instance of dramatic playing that I shall discuss
at length is the most interesting and remarkable in the record. It grew
out of the attempt to give the name of my stepmother correctly in
response to my request for it. The incident represents the difficulties
of communication more clearly than anything else in the experiments,
and it is characterised by calling in G. P. to help out with what Rector
could not accomplish.

As previous notes intimate (Cf. pp. 69, 342, 365) I was in doubt
about what was meant by the name " Nannie " in connection with
incidents that really pertained to my stepmother, who was always
called Maggie by my father. Hence I resolved to clear up this
question without asking directly for the name. Dr. Hodgson knew
my object, as we had talked it over before going to the sitting, but

208

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[part

I did not tell him the details of my plan. On father's appearance
(p. 478) I assured myself of his presence, and at once asked him,
"Who made that cap you referred to so often!" The answer
"mother" was equivocal, and after my further interrogation to
know " which mother," as soon as he understood that 1 meant my
stepmother, "my mother on this side," he at once answered,
"Oh, I see what you mean. Your mother is with me, but Hetties
mother is in the body." This perfectly satisfied me as to who was
meant by the " Nannie " referred to so often in connection with the
cap, and I at once asked about a trip with her out West, intending to
get incidents which would still more clearly identify her without getting
the exact name. But owing to my ignorance of the " Cooper " incident,
and to my having wholly forgotten the fact that on the return from
that trip my father visited me in Chicago, I had not identified the
journey, but supposed that he was referring to the trip in 1861 with
my mother and myself. But as a consequence some confusion arose,
and after my saying that I could not recall any previous mention
of the trip which father asserted he had told about before, there was a
determined effort to give my stepmother's name, and some interlocution
goes on between those on the " other side " until finally father asks if I
referred to the time when we met with the accident (Cf. p. 372), and
on my saying that I did not mean this, he at once indicates by his
next statement that he understands to what I refer, and goes on to
say with astonishing correctness and pertinence : " Well I am sure I
have told you of this before. Think over, and you will recall it. I am
not sure I mentioned her, but I had it on my mind when I referred to
the trip I took just before going out West, do you not recall it ? "

I was perfectly satisfied with this statement, as it made the case
perfectly clear in its reference to the trip "just before going out West,"
and I was on the point of indicating my satisfaction when Dr.
Hodgson, who did not know the facts as I did and could not know
why I was satisfied, interrupted me and called for G. P., to whom he
explained that there was some confusion in my father's mind about
the name of my stepmother. G. P. appreciated the situation and
said " Well, I will assist him. Do not hurry." Father then began an
explanation of what he had been trying to do and how he became
confused by my question, all of which was throwing light on the
identity of my stepmother without giving her name, though there was
evidently one attempt to get it. I was purposely avoiding interrup-
tions, experience having convinced me that, under the circumstances,
the communications should take their own course. But Dr. Hodgson
still thought I was not satisfied with the situation and that the
confusion was continuing. Consequently he began to indicate to
G. P. that there was still some confusion, when I explained that I

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 209

understood the communications perfectly, and they continued until
father left the " light " for a respite. My sister Annie took his place
and spoke for a few minutes announcing his return at the end.
Father was still confused regarding what I wanted, and began to speak
of the trip to which both of us had referred, trying apparently to
let my stepmother's name slip in with his statements. This appeared
as "HAT . . HAR . . No." I shook my head at this,
because it was not clear. Father then expressed his desire to speak of
other things and asked me to tell him exactly what I wanted. Dr.
Hodgson then spoke to " Rector or George " to explain what I wished,
saying that there was " a locus of confusion with reference to James*
stepmother still," and Rector replies "Not so, it hath nothing
to do with mothers of any sort, but it hath to do with trips, which is
confusing him somewhat, and I would not worry him about trips
but let him answer when he returns again." Dr. Hodgson then
explained our difficulty more carefully, saying that the name of my
'* mother in the body had never yet been rightly given," and Rector
replied with the question : " Has it been asked for ? " Dr. Hodgson
then explained just what mistake had been made regarding it, saying
that we had gotten it as " Nannie." Rector replied, with a perfectly
appreciative and correct answer in the statement of facts (p. 483),
bat Dr. Hodgson, not knowing or understanding the pertinence of
• Hector's explanation, answered: "No, Rector." This was calculated
to make confusion worse confounded, and Rector gave up with the
message "I cannot understand it" and yielded to G. P., who, after
Dr. Hodgson explained to him what I wanted, said, apparently with
Home sharpness : " Well, why do you not come out and say, ' Give me my
stepmother's name,' and not confuse him about anything except what
you really want ? " Dr. Hodgson and I explained that the name had
been directly asked for, and he replied somewhat humorously : " Has
it, very well, if she has a name you shall have it, G. P., understand ? "

Dr. Hodgson then repeated his allusion to " some peculiar difficulty
about getting her name," and G. P. replied : "I do not think so, H. ;
but I do think he would refer to it in his own way if let alone. I
know how you confused me, by Jove, and I don't want any more of it.
I am going to help him to tell all he knows from A to Z. No doubt
about it H., no one could be more desirous of doing so than he is. Is
that clear to you ? " My father then begins a long and interesting
message, at the close of which G. P. returns (p. 486) and says : " I
will speak for a moment and say I do not see any reason for anxiety
about Margaret" Dr. Hodgson asked, "Who says this?" and
received the reply : " George." I then asked him to tell the rest, and
the reply, somewhat evading or misunderstanding my question, was :
u He said, I suppose I might as well tell you first as last and have

210

J. H. Hyslop, PhJ).

[PABT

done with it, or James may think I do not really know. Go tell him
this for me. You see I got it out of him for you, H., but you. no
need to get nervous about it, old chap."

Now when we sum up all this we find that at a crucial point
where Rector was right and Dr. Hodgson was wrong, Rector gives up*
baffled in the attempt to understand the situation, and another
personality, G. P., appears for the purpose of clearing matters, and
exhibits a half humorous and impatient temper while scolding Dr.
Hodgson, a temper as different from Rector's long-suffering and
patience as any trait could be, and then with the persiflage of a
man of the world goes about his task of unravelling the confusion.
He succeeds and reports with ease the name that I wanted,
intimating at the same time and indirectly the difficulties that the
communicator has in telling his incidents ! The incompatibility of
all this with either secondary personality or telepathy ought to be
apparent without comment. Assuming telepathy we have the strange
situation that, after its marvellous achievements in both incidents and
proper names, even in this very passage, telepathy is unable to get the
name Margaret by any effort, and yet does get it with ease when G. P.
is called in ! We are then laughed at for making so much fuss about
it ! To us all the fuss appeared on the " other side " ! But what is
the use on the telepathic hypothesis of all the supererogatory efforts
here made in the complicated machinery of several personalities to
get what is at last gotten with the utmost ease, and we are scolded
and ridiculed for our " much ado about nothing " !

As the sitting comes to a close a feature of this dramatic play
appears and adds importance to the remarks just made. G. P. says to
Dr. Hodgson : "lam glad to meet your friend even though you fail
to say anything about him. I am George Pelham, and glad to see
you." I replied : "I am glad to meet you, especially as I know your
brother in Columbia University." The quick response came : " Yes,
Charles." " That is right," I said, and the appreciative reply came :
"Good. I'll see you again. Auftviedersehen."

Now on the telepathic theory all the previous play is an acutely
arranged subliminal fraud, at the same time that the assumed ingenuity
betrays limitations inconsistent with its pretended powers, and their
exposure is made easier than ever. There were opportunities during
the previous fourteen sittings to ascertain that I was acquainted
with this brother Charles, and to use what information I knew of
G. P. himself to spontaneously refer to this brother by simply asking
me, in ostentatious ignorance of the real situation, whether I knew
this brother, and then to send pertinent messages to him drawn
from my subliminal. But not a trace of this is to be found. On the
contrary, G. P., in spite of the earlier allusion to my connection with a

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 211

college and lectures, spontaneously, and in spite of the marvellous
memory that has to be attributed to the subliminal on the telepathic
hypothesis (pp. 160-170), here represents truthfully his entire
ignorance of me, and in the natural surprise of a real person at once
mentions his brother and shows the appropriate emotional interest in
the situation. But telepathy could not get the name " Margaret "
without terrible confusion, though it could get the name Charles with-
out the slightest difficulty, and in spite of the fact that my mental
condition with reference to both names was the same with the excep-
tion that the former was more distinct in memory ! The internal
contradictions of the telepathic theory were never more evident than
here. When telepathy, assuming it, exhibits the facility of its opera-
tions in so marvellous a manner, there is no need of confusion, and
of actions that at once discredit its pretensions and threaten with denial
the belief which it aims to foster ! But if we look at this realistic
play of personality as just what it purports to be we discover its entire
unity and self consistency. The operation of finite agencies under
difficulties that must be admitted in any case is far more intelligible
and consistent than this infinite complexity of all sorts of powers, large
and small, and immeasurably contradictory, to say nothing of its
incompatability with all that we know of secondary personality in its
bent estate.

I may, at this point, very effectively gather up several other
interferences of G. P. which I have not discussed collectively in their
bearing upon this dramatic play. They show a peculiarly unique
feature of these communications, indicating very clearly just what we
are entitled to expect on the spiritistic theory, and not on any other.
In these sudden interruptions. G. P. appears as an intermediary to
interpret, correct, or transmit something which Rector, the amanuensis
does not " hear," and by signing his own initials to the message, or
statement, he reveals just the evidence of another personality and
independent intelligence which would be so natural on the spiritistic
theory, but not to be expected a priori either of the telepathic
hypothesis or of its combination with secondary personality.

After my first sitting, on December 23rd, 1898, there is no definite
hint of G. P.'s presence at my sittings until that of May 30th, 1899.
The statement of my father on May 29th (p. 419), "I am speaking
some other man who is speaking for me," might possibly imply
the presence of G. P., though possibly Rector was intended. But on
May 30th my cousin, Robert McClellan, gives G. P.'s full name —
George Pelham (pseudonym) — and remarks that he is assisting. A
moment later, right in the midst of a communication from my cousin,
wliose messages were badly confused, G. P. suddenly interjects the

212

J. H. Hyslop, Ph D.

[part

statement : " Look out H., I am here. G. P. + [Imperator] sent me
some moments ago " (p. 428). Then again a few minutes later, while
Rector was struggling to get the name McClellan clear and could
only get McAllen, G. P. shouts out, so to speak, as an intermediary
to aid Rector, "Sounds like McLellen. G. P.," and my cousin
acknowledges its correctness by saying : " Yes, I am he."

At the close of my cousin's communications G. P.'s presence and
influence are evident in the sentence declaring : " The machine is not
right, H.," which Dr. Hodgson took to refer to the need of a fresh
pencil, <nd he accordingly gave one. This occurs in the interval between
the departure of my cousin and the arrival of my father (p. 429).

In the same sitting (p. 434) the name of my half-sister was given.
There was considerable trouble with it on Rector's part, as he
stumbled about between the false attempts "Abbie," "Addie," and
" Nabbie," until G. P. suddenly interrupted him with the statement :
" Yes, but let me hear it, and I will get it. G. P." He then gave
the name "Hattie" and followed it with "Harriet," when I acknow-
ledged that it was nearly correct, alluding to the " Hattie " in
particular, but without saying so. I asked that it be spelled out
Then immediately was written : " Hettie. G. P.," spelling it in
capitals, and I expressed satisfaction with it, recognising that this
was the proper nickname for Henrietta, which she was always called.
But as if still uncertain about it, the fact being that father never
called her " Hettie," G. P. continued : " Ett [?] Hettie. G. P."

The form of this message is precisely like the previous one, " Sound*
like McLellen, G. P.," and the use of "Hettie" for Henrietta is
precisely like the communication of Tillie for Matilda in 1892, probably
by this same G. P. (See Proceedings, Vol. XIII., p. 375).

In the sitting for May 31st (p. 440), just as Rector remarked that
it was my father who was communicating, explaining that " he seems
a little dazed," G. P. suddenly interrupted with the statement : " I
am coming, H., to help out. How are you ? " and made some brief
communications with reference to two of his friends, both of them
unknown to me. Dr. Hodgson knew one of them intimately and the
other only by name. Then G. P. follows this with the announcement
that my father and mother are present to communicate, but a singular
verb is used instead of the plural. The plural, however, is immediately
added and followed by the statement : " If I fail grammatically, H.,
it is owing to the machine. Hear. Cannot always make it work
just right." The communications from my father then proceed without
farther interruption (p. 441).

Again in the sitting of J une 6th, before my father appeared, and
just as Rector had explained how we should ask certain questions
when my father should announce himself, G. P. suddenly interjected

xli.] Observation* of Certain Trance Phenomena. 213

a greeting and some questions directed to Dr. Hodgson, the colloquy
being as follows : —

" H. how are you 1 I have just been called upon to lend a

helping hand. Tou see I am not wholly isolated from you. (R. H. :
Good, George, were you here last time?) For a few moments. I
helped a man named Charles, but I did not get a chance to say How
de do, H. ? (R. H. : All right, George.) I am going after the elderly
gentleman. Look out for me. (R. H. : We will.) Got those theories
all straightened out yet, H ? (R. H. : Pretty fairly.) I am going.
Aufwiedersehen. G. P." (p. 468).

My father then appeared with the appropriate message, " I am
coming, James," and we began carrying out our plan of asking for
incidents that were unknown to me. But it is apparent to the
simplest observer that G. P.'s interruption and conversation with Dr.
Hodgson had no relevancy either to me personally or to the genera]
purpose of the situation.

Another sudden interruption, signed by G. P.'s initials, occurred
on J one 7 th. It was in the midst of the confusion incident to the
attempt at giving the name of my stepmother. My father, evidently
appreciating his difficulty in the situation, remarked : " I feel the
necessity of speaking as clearly as possible, James, and I will do my
best to do so." G. P., probably fearing that my father was not yet clear
enough to do what he wished, suddenly cautioned him with the
advice : " Wait a bit," and as Dr. Hodgson interpreted the word
" wait " as " said," G. P. repeated the phrase, signing it : " Wait a
bit. G. P." Father then proceeded with his explanation of the
mistake about my stepmother, all the parties on the " other side "
assuming, apparently, that he was clear enough for the task (p. 481).

In all these interpositions of G. P. the marks of an independent
intelligence are very indicative. There is in them nothing like the
character of either the inexperienced communicator or Rector, the
amanuensis, nor is there any definite resemblance to either secondary
personality in general or to intercommunication between two per-
sonalities in the same subject. They are the interference of a spectator
and helper on his own responsibility, when he sees that he can effect a
clear message that is misunderstood or not clearly obtained by Rector.
Such dramatic play, involving the personal equation of the real indi-
vidual G. P. as known when living, and here kept distinct from that
of Rector and others, is a characteristic not easily explicable on any
but the spiritistic theory, especially when it includes the transmission
of evidential data.

The last sitting is a drama intelligible enough to be understood
without comment, though it is between Rector and myself, and my
father and myself. The play of personality is not of the same sor*

Digitized by Google

214

J. H. Hy8lop,Ph.D.

[part

as that which I have analysed so carefully, but it is the action of an
independent intelligence under circumstances involving such prompt
answers to my statements and questions as the reader will find it
difficult to explain on any other hypothesis than the spiritistic. The
tfte a tSte conversation that this last sitting represents is opposed to
the supposition that the difficulties alluded to in the last case of
dramatic play are anything but spiritistic.

The third argument for the spiritistic theory is based upon the
mistakes and confusions. By mistakes I do not mean the positively
erroneous or false incidents, but only such as might be construed as
the natural errors of memory and interpretation, as we know them in
living minds. Still one may ask, when attempting to stretch telepathy
sufficiently to account for the phenomena by its special and selective
omniscience, whether positive errors are not a contradiction in such an
hypothesis. A capacity which can discriminate so effectively between
the true and the false in most of its acquisitions, and which can select
and present the truth in instances that are often far more complex
than those in which it is erroneous, ought to know enough, no matter
how devilish you make it, to avoid deceiving you by telling what is
not true. It ought to know what is false and not to run any risks in
its policy of deception, conscious or unconscious. A finite intelligence
can be supposed to commit errors of this sort, but such unfailing
discrimination between my own personal memories alone and those
that are common to me and the alleged communicators, and the
selection of facts unknown to me from the proper memory of some one
else in the world, at any distance and absolutely unknown to the
medium, make error of any sort a flat contradiction with such an
assumed capacity as is necessary to meet the conditions of the case, and
especially inconsistent should be the representation of incidents as true
that such a power ought to know are false, and which, when dis-
covered, are sure to bring discredit upon its intentions. On any
supposition, of course, we have to reckon with the presence of the
true with the false, but it is far easier on the spiritistic theory to
admit the possibility of error than on the telepathic, because we know
that in finite minds truth and error live together and we understand
why they do so. But a telepathic power that can organise from the
scattered memories of various living beings, unknown to the person
who is supposed to exercise it, all the elements that go to establish the
personal identity of some one that is dead, is not a power that can
commit the simple mistakes of a finite memory and consciousness with
impunity. Having started on the mission of doing what ordinarily
seems impossible ib must be consistent and not discover any weakness

(3) Mistakes and Confusions.

XLI-] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 215

as we know it in the living. Otherwise its pretensions are exposed to
suspicion, and we should tarn to the hypothesis that in normal life can
reconcile the facts oi error with those of truth, and this hypothesis is
the one that gives unity to the phenomena by supposing limitations
that are consistent with all the facts. If the false preponderated, we
might well measure them off against the theory of chance to account
for the true, or balance the evident limitations of telepathy in such a
case with the equal limitations of secondary personality. But the
errors are proportionately so few, and when not so few are so simple
as compared with the complexity of the true, that the limitations
involved in the explanation of the false reflect too seriously upon the
immense powers that have to be assumed to account for the true by
telepathy. That is to say, its evident finitude conflicts with its
apparent infinity. But I shall not dwell upon this in a general way,
as my purpose is to deal with it in detail and to interpret the positive
errors in the light of those merely partial errors which show just that
unity and degree of limitation which put the telepathic theory to its
severest test, and provide the natural escape from the supposition of
secondary personality in regard to the false. The mistakes, therefore,
upon which the present stress will be laid are those cases in which the
communicator is nearly right, and in which, from that very fact, the
limitations of the telepathic hypothesis are unequivocally proved, and
once admitted will both serve as an apology for the totally false
incidents and turn the scientific understanding toward the spirit
hypothesis as the only one that can rationally account for the truth
and error combined, owing to its merely repeating the laws of mind
as actually known, while the use of telepathy must be an appeal to the
unknown in stretching it to cover the complexities of the whole case.
Where the evidence in the positive cases of truth coincided with real
limitations to telepathy between living minds we could well expect
errors and confusion to be consistent with it. But when the quantity
and quality of the matter which has to be explained by telepathy, if
that is the theory to be proposed, are so great and so complex that it
demands such amazing capacities of mind reading, of the near and
remote, as defy the rationality of mistake and confusion, we are
bound to pause and reflect. Where the evidence shows a practically
omnipotent power of discrimination, selection and acquisition, mistakes
of a kind that ought not to .occur on any such supposition must
contradict the hypothesis and favor the theory in which mistakes are
natural and probable.

This argument can be put in a still more effective way. Finite
memories in the actual world commit so many mistakes that psychical
researchers are afraid to admit human testimony involving the facts
alleged to prove a future existence. Why, then, be any more exactin*

216

J. H. Hydop, PLD.

[part

of supposed discarnate spirits ? We ought to expect a priori that &
discarnate memory should be defective in its communications from m
transcendental world, and this for two very important reasons. (1)
If the physiological theory of memory be true, we ought to obtain
absolutely nothing whatever of a spirit's past existence from the spirit
itself, assuming of course that it can or does exist. (2) The con-
ditions of any communication at all might very well disturb either
the integrity of memory or the message, or both, for the time being;
at least, sufficiently to make the communicator commit very many
mistakes.

The physiological theory of memory is usually couched in such
terms as to imply the entire dependence of that function upon the
brain, even by those who do not think the brain sufficient to account
for consciousness at large. This would naturally imply that dissolution
must efface all memory of the past, even if the subject still survived.
The physiologist, therefore, who concedes the brain theory, cannot
expect anything as a message from a discarnate world, even when he
believes, in contradiction with the principle that all rational belief
depends upon evidence, that there is such a world. I am not disputing
that theory of memory, as I am willing to concede its truth if the
evidence can be produced in its favor, but I insist that such a theory
must destroy all rights to believe in a discarnate world at all, even if
such exists, simply because the belief is without evidence, and its
reality, when supposed, without interest of any kind. But modifying
the doctrine so that brain functions are supposed merely to affect the
integrity of memory, not to condition its existence, we should then
naturally expect some disturbance in its power of recall in a discarnate
form, supposing this survival possible. Consequently we have no
right to prejudge the case by the a priori assumption that spirit
communications should be freer from mistakes than the deliverances
of consciousness in the abnormal conditions of actual life. But again,
assuming that the physiological theory of memory is altogether false,
the conditions intervening between two disparate worlds must, on
every principle of rationality, affect the communications in some way,
so that mistakes should occur, and these of a kind that ought not to
occur on the telepathic hypothesis, as that supposition has not to
assume any but terrestial conditions to deal with. No matter how
clear the memory may actually be in, its own medium, any contact
with abnormal conditions must affect its integrity, for the time being
at least, according to the physiological theory. That ought to be a
truism, so that mistakes and confusion, more especially on the spiritistic
theory than the telepathic, should be expected and actually strengthen
the evidence if they occur in the form which the nature of the case
enables us to expect.

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 217

Also we should expect errors if personal identity survives. What
we know of the mind shows it to be finite, and it would have to be
finite after death if the general law of continuity holds good at all.
Consequently, the very supposition of identity would make mistakes of
memory, inference, and judgment or interpretation, the most natural
things in the world. The memory should show the same characteristics,,
successes and failures, strength and weakness with which we are
familiar in living persons and the observations of general psychology.
Any other supposition involves such a change in the capacities of the
mind as would most likely destroy the consciousness of its identity.
The ordinary supposition that spirits, assuming here the possibility of
their existence, have transcendent . powers of knowledge and memory,
is really in conflict with the notion of personal identity, and puts the
very existence of them beyond the reach of science and legitimate
belief. Of course this loss of identity might be the fact, but even
when we suppose that the subject of the present consciousness sur-
vives, the supposition of this loss of identity would cut up by the roots
both all rational belief in the existence of any such beings and the
interest that any sane man might have in a transcendental existence
if believed. If there be no personal identity, or consciousness of itr
supposing that the subject of incarnate consciousness survives, we can
have no more rational interest in a hereafter than if we were actually
annihilated, unless we meant to assume with Plato, on the one hand,
that the present life affects the destiny and action of this subject
without the memory nexus, as we observe in certain connections
between the supraliminal and subliminal streams of consciousness in
normal life, and on the other, that our altruism must be strong enough
to conform to moral rules that reap no benefit for us, but only for a
subject in whose life we cannot participate in any interested way.
This may be the correct view, if you like, but it is not consistent with
the moral law that recognises the rights of the individual in its sacri-
fices for the sociu8. But as we cannot appeal to the moral ideal that
might be anthropomorphic, or that is liable to this charge, in support
of a scientific truth, we must adjust our morals to the facts of the
universe, whether we survive or not. Nevertheless, it is legitimate
both to indicate that inconsistency and to show that the expectation
of such transcendent powers of mind as are usually assumed implies
a change in the capacities of the individual that must involve the
loss of the personal identity which is supposed. From every point of
view, therefore, we must grant that, on the supposition of personal
identity at all, the communications should show the mistakes and con-
fusions of ordinary life, multiplied and intensified both by the con-
ditions of communication and by the absence of the physiologic
conditions that affect the action, even when they do not absolute

218

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

determine the existence, of memory. Now, as a matter of fact, the
resemblance between the phenomena of incarnate memories and those
of the alleged discarnate minds is remarkably exact. Besides showing
personal identity in what is unmistakably true, the incidents often
exhibit just that error which we should at once classify as an illusion of
memory in actual life, and consequently furnish us both a natural
explanation of the phenomena and the evidence of their inconsistency
with the assumption of omnipotent powers on the part of the medium's
brain. Hence to decide the case against spiritism on the ground of
mistakes and confusions is to make the following assumptions : (1)
that the discarnate life, supposing it true, involves certain perfections
which, in fact, are inconsistent with the personal identity that the
believer in a future existence usually maintains ; (2) that physiological
conditions in the present life do not affect either the integrity or the
action of memory ; (3) that transcendental conditions, even when the
memory is perfect, do not influence the fact and the nature of commu-
nication. Now either all of these assumptions are false, as I hold them
to be, or we have a contest beween the purely physiological theories of
memory (discarding the psychological theory as in any case sub judice),
and the contradictions in the telepathic hypothesis. I am assuming
for the sake of argument that the physiological theory of memory
is inconsistent with any other theory of consciousness than the
materialistic, though this may not be the case as a fact, as I
should be inclined to maintain on ordinary psychological grounds. As
memory is absolutely necessary to the consciousness of personal
identity, though it might not be necessary to the identity of the subject
itself, it is the condition of establishing the identity of a discarnate
spirit, supposing its existence. But a purely physiological theory of
memory both eliminates all hope of proving the existence and persis
tence of a soul, and shuts us up to telepathy to account for the
coincidences in these phenomena that exclude chance as an
explanation. If then we ignore the force of the psychological
theory of memory against the physiological theory of the same,
the whole question narrows itself down to the adequacy of tele-
pathy to account for the facts. If it is not adequate the physiological
theory of memory is not true, but vulnerable from two points of view
instead of one only. If telepathy covers the case the situation is just
what it is between the psychological and the physiological schools. But
in any case the issue centres in the capacities of telepathy, all other
controversies being suspended on the termination of this issue. Con-
sequently the problem is to see if the mistakes and confusions in the
Piper phenomena are consistent with the suppositions that have to be
made to explain the incidents that are not mistakes, or whether it is
not more rational to suppose survival as only an extension of the

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 219

principles that we already know in the action of finite consciousness.
This question will have to be discussed in the concrete, and finally
settled by the individual himself.

I have already alluded to the nature of this argument in discussing
lx>th the unity of consciousness and the dramatic play of personality
when the occasion made it useful to do so, and hence the general import
of it ought to be detected in what has been said, especially in that
part of the dramatic play which is ostensibly undertaken to avoid error
itself. But 1 shall not repeat at length these incidents, as a mere
reference to them is sufficient to remind the reader of their pertinence
in this connection. 1 may call attention to the individual instances
of mistake and confusion in the midst of any sustained dramatic play,
but it will not be necessary to repeat the whole case for the reader
to understand the force of what I am contending for here. What we
have to do at present is to keep clear the magnitude of the telepathic
powers that have to be assumed to explain the true incidents, and
8 imply ask whether certain mistakes and confusions are at all consistent
with that supposition, and so whether the spiritistic hypothesis is
not the simpler and easier one as well as more in conformity with the
known laws of the finite mind and of scientific method.

I have already alluded to certain mistakes and confusions in the first
sitting that I had, as I was discussing its dramatic play, but I have
not fully indicated their significance. The incident that calls special
attention to the feature which I wish to discuss at present is the
appearance of the lady who claimed to be my mother. The names and
incidents connected therewith were false in so far as relevancy to me
i* concerned. As I have already remarked (p. 186), telepathy, when
it shows such remarkable powers in the acquisition of the sitter's
memories, ought not to make such an error as this insistence that the
lady was my mother. The medium's experience in supposed tele-
pathic processes ought naturally to suggest surprise at such tentative
endeavours as are found in my first sitting. All this groping about
and attendant confusion is incomprehensible on any theory that
makes experience worth anything in the development of power,
and so renders equally plausible the hypothesis which has to
encounter the natural difficulties imposed by the test conditions which
I was observing, unless we maintain that the medium has to begin her
education in the telepathic access on each occasion of a new sitter.
This supposition discounts the influence of experience with others, but
scepticism in the absence of adequate knowledge of the real capacities
of telepathy enjoys some impunity in proposing an objection of this
sort. We might suppose that on the admission of a new sitter if
requires some time to east over the whole mass of memories and
obtain the clue to the proper selection of incidents. This is all v

Digitized by Google

220

«/. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

ingenious and obtains such force as it has, and that is not much, from
the limitations of our knowledge in regard to the process of what we
choose to call telepathy, but it is a priori and we have a right to
exact of its advocate empirical evidence both within and indepen-
dently of the Piper case for its assertion, and an application of the
hypothesis to details, because the facts so thoroughly satisfy the
criterion for personal identity that spiritism can undoubtedly explain
the phenomena, so that the only excuse for any other hypothesis must
>e either that it explains the phenomena more easily, or that it is a
probable alternative that demands exclusion before rational conviction
is left without a choice. What there is in telepathy to supply the
grounds for either of these alternatives must be left to those who are
able to furnish scientific evidence for their contention. But there is
no special immunity in assuming that the theory is apparent or
probable on the face of it, nor that the opposite theory demands any
more credulity than a conception which is little more, or perhaps
nothing more, than a name for general coincidences whose content is
ignored in the application of it. That is to say, the coincidence
between variations, based on the personal equation, in experimental
telepathy and variations on a similarly supposed basis in the Piper
phenomena is not sufficient evidence of their identity in abstraction
from the peculiar and striking psychological content which distinguishes
them so radically, no matter how much difficulty the statement of the
supposition may give in a formal argument.

But there is another objection to this assumption that experience
has to begin over again in each new sitter. This is not always the
tact. Perhaps it is not often so. It is very frequent that the first
sitting is as good as any other. I might even say with tolerable
accuracy that the difference between the first and other sittings is not
great enough in most cases to attribute it to any other cause than
the natural difficulties of establishing the proper connections for
communication such as the spiritistic theory would require, so that
we have to suppose telepathy always duplicating just what the
opposing theory demands. That sort of process should suggest to any
one who has a sense of humour the dangerous proximity of his assump-
tion to the spiritistic theory itself. Again, this doctrine that each new
trial demands time and experience to segregate the facts necessary to
imitate personal identity necessarily breaks down on the variations
between sittings themselves. The experience counts for nothing unless
other conditions are favourable at the same time. But conditions that
subordinate experience to themselves are entitled to a more important
place than experience itself, and suggest greater consistency with
spiritism than with any alternative theory. In support of this
contention the reader may find it interesting to compare my sittings

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 221

for June 6th (p. 467), 7th (p. 477), and 8th (p. 487), and also Dr.
Hodgson's sittings for February 16th (p. 384), 20th (p. 391), and 22nd
(p. 396). See also the Statistical Summary (Nos. III., IV., and V.,
p. 119, and Nos. VI., VII., and VIII., p. 120). In these there is no
special evidence to confirm the general theory of experience, but much
to suggest the influence of very different conditions upon the result.
Further suspicion against the influence of experience in either form is
aroused by the incidents of the first sitting, in spite of the judgment
which I originally passed upon it. If we do not accept the incidents
as evidence of telepathy we are confronted with the contrast between
this and the second sitting where the evidence of something unusual is
quite apparent. If we do accept the existence of the supernormal in
the first sitting it takes that form which does not suggest anything
liks the gradual development of its powers. The giving of the names
of my brother Charles and my sisters Annie and Margaret, the allusion
to the death of my mother's sister with its right relation in time, the
intimation that both my father and mother were dead, all the various
specific incidents identifying my brother Charles, and two or three
approximately correct names and incidents have their cogency increased
by two facts that show how large the supposed telepathy must be, in
spite of the assumption of its need for education in the individual case.
These two facts are the name and relationship of my father's sister
and the important statement " Give me my hat and let me go," both
of which represented incidents unknown to me and hence extend the
supposed telepathy so far under conditions imagined to involve
limitations to the process that we may well wonder whether our
theory of experience and groping about in the memory of the sitter is
not a mere subterfuge. The supposition has no other strength than
the fact that the limitations of telepathy have not been positively
assigned. Ignorance, however, is not proof. I grant that the
argumentum ad ignoranliam is a legitimate resource for raising the
standard of evidence, but it does not involve an explanation.
On the contrary, it complicates explanation by necessitating the
extension of an hypothesis without regard to the proper unity of the
phenomena. Of course a man who finds a certain formal resemblance
between telepathy and what is supposed to be spiritistic may not be
easily convinced against his will, and it is not a part of my task to
insist upon this result. I am more interested in the anticipation of
the sceptic's objections than I am in convincing him on this point.
But I think a dispassionate examination of the facts, as indicated, will
remit in the recognition of the spiritistic position on this particular
question as at least equally credible with the telepathic, while in other
issues, and possibly in this also, it presents superior credentials if
favourable consideration.

222

J. H. Hydop, PLD.

[part

There are three general facts that show there is no excuse for con-
fusion in the telepathic theory. The first is the circumstance that
at no time did any amount of experience suffice to secure communica-
tions with certain persons who were even more entitled to recognition
on the telepathic theory than some that were admitted. I could name
two instances very easily in my sittings, and it is all the more striking
when we know that one of these two was implied in two of the messages
given (p. 316). The second is that telepathy can show no special
reason for the short time that it is possible to communicate. The
third fact is the circumstance that telepathy has no excuse for the
differences between " communicators," one being clear and the other
confused. Consequently the spiritistic theory has the advantage of
being far more consistent than telepathy with the conditions
that we should be entitled to suppose and with the facts as we
know them. Concrete illustrations will indicate this better than
generalisations.

Any reader can compare the communications of my father with
those of my " uncle Clarke/' and see for himself the very striking
difference between them. My uncle never got «his name through
rightly, and only in one or two passages did he even get the facts
clear (pp. 90-95, 423;. Nearly all his efforts ended in hopeless
confusion, and much the same is true of my cousin Robert McClellan.
Several times he got some important matters clear and definite, and
was always better than my M uncle Clarke." But he never became as
clear as his own father (p. 470), nor so clear as my brother and
sister. Now the data in my mind were the same for all these per-
sonalities and also for persons who never appeared at all, so that tele-
pathy is absolutely without excuse for its confusions and its failures to
produce certain other persons. One or two instances of confusion or
of difference in clearness might be attributable to the " conditions "
under which telepathy acts, but that this characteristic should invariably
distinguish one communicator from another involves such a stretching
of the hypothesis of " conditions,11 all unknown, that we may well ask
whether what we know of the personal equation in different men, on
the one hand, and the admitted fact of necessary difficulties in any
case of communication, on the other, does not consist far more readily
with spiritism than with the a ptnori elasticity of telepathy and its
" conditions."

I wish to lay considerable stress upon this failure to get my uncle's
name. In the case of most of the names the difficulties either did not
show themselves or were soon overcome. The names of my half-sister
(Henrietta) and my cousin (Lucy McClellan) gave some difficulty,
the latter especially, but were obtained at last correctly, if we can
regard " Hettie " as correctly representing Henrietta, though she was

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 223

never called by anything but Henrietta by my father and the family.
There was also a little difficulty in getting through my cousin's name,
Robert McClellan, but it was not much. My uncle's name, however,
that of Car rut hers, never came rightly. The exemption from difficulties
varies, as I have shown, with the communicator, or with the conditions
possibly under which the messages are delivered. But the reader will
notice that very often proper names are given promptly and without a
struggle, and in all cases with two or three exceptions, which I did not
try to have completed, were gotten correctly at last. Now there is
nothing but a very natural psychological reason, connected with the
certainty of difficulties and obstacles in the way of spirit communica-
tion, for mistaking the names " uncle Clarke " and * uncle Charles "
for that of Carruthers, the right name, especially after his Christian
name James, had once been given. The mistake in this case, as it
must appear to the cautious scientist, is so great that I should have no
right whatsoever to suppose that this particular uncle was meant,
were it not that time and again incidents, names, and relationships
were indicated by him and about him that were true of no one
else in the world, even when taken singly, to say nothing of
their collective pertinency. This is strengthened by the natural
approximation to his correct name. One can see very easily how
"Carruthers" might be confused with the name "Charles" in the
telephone, and also how a more careful effort to make it clear by laying
the stress upon the first syllable " Car " might lead to the name
" Clarke " by suggestion, and as the representation of the communica-
tions in the whole history of the Piper and similar cases is uniform in
its comparison with something like telephonic processes, we have in
the spiritistic theory a better approximation to an explanation than
in the telepathic, which ought not to get into trouble with an aural
memory when it has the visual to draw upon also. The mistake is
perfectly conceivable on the theory of spiritism, especially when we
consider the effect of unfamiliar language in these communications.
Compare the phrase "United Presbyterian" (p. 492) and experi-
ments through a tube (p. 624), and also my own mistake mentioned
in a footnote (p. 240). A quasi omnipotent telepathy which
can reproduce all the complex incidents on which I have commented
in the discussion of the dramatic play of personality, and so easily defy
the limitations of time and space, ought not so utterly to fail in this
name when it so nearly achieves success on the analogies of both the
known action of the telephone and the represented action of spirit
communication. The assumption of telepathy requires us always to
explain why it is constantly reproducing characteristics in all their
variety and complexity, adaptation and intelligent unity, that ought
to be found in spiritistic phenomena.

•224

J. H. Hyalop, PLD.

[part

Another illustration of a very simple mistake that represents a
natural illusion of memory is that in which my father mentions a
" flute," which he refers to my brother Will, the correction of which
makes it the guitar that belonged to my brother George (p. 461). In
this also there was a very pretty piece of dramatic playing that is
most interesting in its mechanical features. I shall notice this again.
But the important fact for remark now is the circumstance that the
mention of the " flute " and the reference of its ownership to the
wrong person has no excuse on the telepathic hypothesis, as the
incident in the form in which it is first told was false. Moreover,
before I had recognised the meaning of the message it was spontaneously
corrected to " fiddle," an instrument that more nearly resembled the
guitar that was finally indicated by action of the hand, but it
was still technically wrong and not derived telepathically, unless we
suppose this function liable to the same apperceptive errors as ordinary
judgment. How easily it might be an illusion or error of memory on
the part of my father under any conditions whatsoever, incarnate or
discarnate, is indicated by the following facts. It was about 1878 when
my brother got the guitar, and it was about 1880 when he took it with
him into another part of the State, almost totally abandoning the use
of it there, and ray father never saw it from that date to his death,
sixteen years, unless when on a visit there in 1889. He was never in
the least interested in the instrument when my brother was at home,
except to say that he thought my brother would never do anything
with it. Hence it is not an unnatural mistake to mention the wrong
person as owner, especially when it is also known that the brother
mentioned was closely associated with the other in all the incidents
and relationships involved in its proper ownership. But whether the
error be attributed to an illusion of memory as an apology for it is
not the chief matter of interest, but its conflict with the telepathic
hypothesis which has been so successful, according to supposition, in
far more complicated incidents, and here is able to come near enough
to suggest what was in mind, but is wholly false in the details.

The explanation of this confusion of the flute with a guitar is not
so easy, as it involves some knowledge of supposable transcendental
conditions of existence for which there is little or no evidence in this
record. The attempt here to recall the name of the instrument by
imitating the manner in which it was played, and the similar attempts
to describe the uses of the cane (p. 400) by reproducing the move-
ments involved, and to indicate the " gold bug " on the cane that
I gave my father by drawing it (p. 495), are illustrations of possible
actions, if the conception that the soul involves a facsimile of the
bodily form be correct (Proceedings, Vol. XIII., p. 301). Let us at
least imagine this state of the case in order to represent the supposable

Digitized by Google

xix] Observations of Certain Tra/nce Phenonena. 22&

effort here to communicate with me. We see that Rector is .finally
reduced to the necessity of imitating the mode of playing the instru-
ment as the only resource for correcting the original mistake. But
how did the error occur at first ? Assuming that the communicator
had forgotten the name of the guitar we can imagine that he himself
acted as if holding such an instrument upon his shoulder and picked
it with his fingers, and the suggestion to Rector was that of a flute,
which, on the communicator's denying it, was corrected to " fiddle,"
then " vial " for violin, and again on dissent, to actions that would
convey to me the idea of what was meant. The mistakes, therefore,
on this construction become perfectly natural and explainable on the
spiritistic theory and incomprehensibly complex and absurd on the
telepathic. The difficulty that strikes one is the assumption of any-
thing like the " astral body " doctrine which is apparently so necessary
for this representation of the case. We are so accustomed to the
Cartesian conception of a soul which refuses it any property of exten-
sion that we endeavour to conceive it after the idea of Boscovich's
points of force. But there is no absolutely necessary obligation to
accept the preconceptions of Cartesian dualism in order to eliminate
the associations of matter for conceiving a world transcending sense,
as is well illustrated in the phenomena of X rays, where we have a
whole universe of force that does not reveal itself to sense perception
in anything but its effects, and it is an invisible world of force in a
definite relation to extension. There is therefore nothing but the
superstition of Cartesian authority for clinging to the idea that the
soul cannot occupy space, and the " astral body " theory, divested of
its absurd theosophic assumptions and unwarranted speculations, may,
for all that we know, represent the truth. But we cannot assume it,
nor can we any more assume the theory that must represent it as a
point of force or spaceless reality. Either may be true, but must be
proved or rendered rational by the necessity of supposing one or the
other to explain facts. There is evidence, such as it is, in the records
of psychical research to make it possible, if we assume a soul at all,
that either it or the " spiritual body " occupies space, and on that
assumption the dramatic representation in this guitar incident becomes
intelligible, but on the telepathic hypothesis it is impossible to obtain
any intelligible unity to the phenomena, and it is perhaps equally difficult
to imagine their occurrence on the supposition that the soul is a
spaceless reality, though I can conceive it possible by means that it is
not necessary to elaborate, as it is only the difficulties of telepathy,
not the legitimacy of either the Cartesian or the theosophic concep-
tion of the soul, that I am endeavouring to enforce. Telepathy ought
to obtain guitar as easily as either flute, fiddle or violin, and so simple
a mistake is incompatible with the powers it is usually supposed +

Digitized by

226

J. ST. Hplop, Ph£>.

[part

display. But the mistake' is doubly interesting in the light of the
historical fact that in my positive knowledge father was .far more
familiar with the flute, fife, fiddle or violin, and organ thari he was
^ith the guitar, both in regard to the matter of names and the
instruments. He knew absolutely nothing about the guitar except
as in the possession of my brother.

Another illustration of a somewhat similar confusion and mistake,
is in the set of incidents connected with the communications about the
canes (p. 397). The mistakes in this instance are not due to anything
exactly like lapses of memory, but are much more like the confusion, of
two similar incidents in association and memory, and to imperfections
that belong to the transmission of the messages. An illustration of
the first feature of this instance is in the sentence whicli apparently
speaks of one cane, but which is false,0n that supposition, though true
supposing that the communicator was trying to speak of two; cknea
that answer to the different parts of the sentence.' It was' false that
father ever had ''a curved handled cane on which7 he tia3*carvek his
initials, but it was true that his children had twenty-five years before
given him a gold-headed ebony cane on which his initials were 'carved,
and I had given him a cane with a curved handle about one year
before his death. But it turns out that the elaborate description of
the various uses of the cane, an account which I could not understand
at the time, was not intended to refer to this curved handled cane that
was suggested to me, but to another curved handled one that had been
broken and mended with a ring of tin (p. 533). Hence it appears as
if two canes were here in mind, and if the representation that is
generally given of the imperfections of the messages be true this
conjecture that the attempt was to mention both canes has its
possibilities. But without apologising for the case at present, the
difficulty that is presented to telepathy in this complicated incident
is that of being able to discriminate so clearly in all important
instances and yet falling into hopeless confusion at a very simple
discrimination in this instance. It is also farther complicated with
the fact that, whatever association is permitted to it in the acquisition
of incidents, in this case there is the fact that I knew nothing about
my father's habits in the uses of the cane as indicated. Hence we
have to suppose, in this attempt to apply telepathic association to
explain the confusion of like memories, that this associative power can
instantly reach out into space and secure what I did not know to
finish the picture of what I did know, no distinction being drawn in
telepathic acquisitions between the known, the remembered and the
forgotten, as well as the unknown. This involves instant rapport with
any living person with the implied infinite power 6f discrimination
between *th"e right and the wrong factsV With such "a* power there
9

jHttff * Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 227

dftght not to occur such a simple error as the confusion of the gold-
headed and the curved-handled cane, nor after the easy and clear
access of similar facts at any distance should there have been this
pantomime process describing the uses of the cane. The facts ought
to have been clearly given. But when we know the facts about the
cane, and recognise that the description which Rector gives fits exactly
what I ascertained in regard to my father's habits on such occasions
as my notes describe (pp. 415-416) we have an intelligible pheno-
menon. Of course it takes the " spiritual body " theory to make this
intelligible in descriptive language to our imagination, though the
very confusion and difficulties of communication in such incidents
may be due to the falsity of that doctrine, and I do not care to urge
it as in any way necessary or indispensable to the occurrence of the
phenomena.

The next instance of mistake is. much like the one just discussed in
one of its aspects. It is the case of referring what was true of one
brother to another of whom it was not true, thvugb in all but the
character of the incidents that the communicator hadtin mind the (main
circumstance applied to both. I refer to notes fofntietails (p. 516).
But it was an instance in which the communicator, when living, had
taken objections to the social affiliations of two brothers, the grounds
and reasons being very different in each case. Here is a situation for
natural confusion in any mind, where either the memory is imperfect
or the conditions disturbing to the communications, whatever the
memory. The events were contemporaneous and of the same general
character, but different in their specific marks. Association would
naturally bring both into consciousness, and difficulties in the com-
munication might do the rest, or there might be a momentary illusion
of memory in the recall of the events, and any sensitiveness of the
communicating " machine " might reflect that illusion or a part of it.
There is much in the record to illustrate the influence of precisely the
factor just mentioned (pp. 324, 430). But whether or not, it is certain
that the lapse of twenty years, as was the case in this instance, with
the unquestionably difficult conditions of communication would easily
produce such a mistake as we find here. Nor can we say that it might
be precisely the error that telepathy would make in its attempt to use
the law of association, fop^t showed no tendency to commit such a
mistake in the tax incidents (p. 493) which represented a situation
similar to this. The distinction was clearly made between the latter
by the communicator, and obliviscence on my part resulted in the con-
faskm on my side until my correspondence showed that the communi-
cator was right. Moreover, in all other instances in which telepathy
is supposed and in which association is a necessary factor, its comman^
of tBa* function Weo perfect by the terms of its success in getting

Digitized byCjQQfilC

228

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

rightly connected incidents, that its mistake in such a case is an
evidence of weakness that discredits it as an explanatory hypothesis.

In support of the naturalness of this mistake in both instances
above described, and of its explicability in terms of a personal con
sciousness other than the medium's brain, I shall narrate exactly
parallel instances in my own experience. They show that if I had
been a communicating spirit at the time I should have committed the
same error.

On September 4th last I was reading Miss Alice Johnson's paper on
" Coincidences," and when I came to the case of the boat race which
I had reported myself (Proceedings, Vol. XIV., p. 253), I noticed the
fact that I had completely forgotten that I had reported it, though
I recalled it presently, but thought at the same time that it was the
same boat race which figures in the " Experiments on Identification of
Personality " (p. 579). I instantly recalled the persons that took
part in this experiment and it was some minutes before I discovered
that the instances were entirely different. The interest in the fact
lies in the circumstance that if I had been a communicating spirit at
the time, I should not only have confused the two boat races, hut I
should have sent through the wrong names in connection with one of
them. A precisely similar case was the confusion of the 23rd Psalm
with the 133rd, as noted in another instance where I did not discover
my mistake for more than six months, and then only under the
correction of my wife (p. 612).

One of the most interesting illusions of this kind on my part is the
following, and it will not be less interesting to know that the discovery
of it destroys one of the illustrations that I had originally quoted
against the spiritistic theory in the first draft of this discussion.

When I was re-reading the Report of Professor Lodge after my
sittings (Proceedings, Vol. VI., p. 520), I was struck with the resem-
blance between the incident there told of an accident with a boat and
a reference to a boat by my father (p. 478). I at once noted the fact,
and, without comparing it with my record, accepted my memory
of it and raised the question whether it was not a good piece of
evidence for the unity of the two regimes, the Phinuit and Imperator
personalities. In my first draft, therefore, of my report, relying
wholly upon my memory of the incidents, I said, " The incident which
my father narrates about the upsetting of a boat and his sister helping
him to dry his clothes is almost exactly duplicated in all its details by
a similar communication to Professor Lodge in England in 1889." But
in the revision of this draft I was induced to examine my statements
in the light of the record and the following mistakes occur in the
above statement placed in quotation marks. My father says nothing
of the upsetting of a boat and nothing of his sister's helping him dry

■ll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 229

k clothes, though the language "helped me out 01 the difficult/ *
■tight be so interpreted in this and other ways from the context (see
■ 478). Nor does my father say, as was indicated of the sister in
■releasor Lodge's incident, that she had " screened 99 the accident from
Be knowledge of others. The source of the illusion on my part was as

I The incident narrated by my father does not indicate that a boat
■was upset, but at another time my brother Charles mentioned in his
Etteasage about a boat that it had been overturned (p. 464), and also
leather, in his incident about the broken waggon and wheel, said that
his sister Eliza had " tried to cover it up, so it would not leak out, so
to speak 99 (p. 470). It is perfectly clear, therefore, that my memory
had confused three different incidents in making up the identity of
my case with that of Professor Lodge. Now if I had been a com-
municator under the circumstances I should have transmitted or made
a statement which the sitter would have had to condemn as false, or
reconstruct from his own knowledge of the facts into three different
incidents. Compare the incident of the " chest,'1 etc., Note 93, p. 534.

I must mention still, another illusion of memory on my part, of
precisely the same kind as the above. It occurred while Dr. Hodgson
and myself were revising together the record, and comparing it with
the original automatic writing. The expression " the whole city "
occurred in connection with the reference to the incident of the fire
(p. 324), and I recalled the burning of Chicago which had interested
and affected my father very much. Dr. Hodgson asked when this
occurred, and I replied that it was in 1873. Dr. Hodgson remarked
that he thought it was in 1872. I replied that it must have been in
1873, because it had occurred after I started to college, and this was
in the year 1873. The incident that made me think so was the
recollection that I had remarked the smoky appearance of the country
at the time, and the locality in mind was that of the college which
I was attending. In a moment I recalled that it was my father
who had remarked in my presence at the time of the Chicago fire that
possibly the smoky atmosphere, though we were three hundred miles
from Chicago, was influenced by that conflagration. The moment that
this memory occurred to me I found that my previous impression must
be false, as father's observation applied to the old home locality,
which was fifty miles from the place where I was attending college,
and this latter place he had never seen. For a moment I was puzzled
to account for the lapse of memory. But the next moment I recalled
the fact that during the dry fall at college a large forest fire broke out
that did very much damage, and the smoke in the surrounding country
reminded me precisely of the smoky sky and atmosphere that we
observed at the time of the Chicago fire. I have often thought of the

Digitized by

280

J. H. Hydop, PhM.

[bat

two incidents together. I looked up the matter and found that Ab
Chicago fire occurred in 1871. My memory, then, was partly wrong
and partly right in its recollection. There was a distinct connection
between the two events, but it was mental and not chronological br
otherwise objective. Here again, therefore, if I had been communi-
cating, I should have confused the incidents of two separate events in
my communication, though I should have been correct in the subjective
connection given them, a fact, however, which the sitter might never
have ascertained or appreciated.

In the messages of my sittings we have exactly the mental situa-
tion of these cases duplicated and the identical error committed. Tlie
little resemblance that the incidents have to telepathy, especially the
last, is shown by the statement about " catching the fish on Sunday "
and connecting it with my brother Frank, which, if it be pertinent at
all, represents two facts that are false. First, that the fishing was on
Sunday, and second that " Sunday '; h a word that my father never
used, as he absolutely and always used the word 41 Sabbath.". He forbade
its use on our part At best the incident is only partly bene, and if
altogether false is certainly not telepathic. Then, if telepathy haslsuch
good command of the memories and associations in the minds of otfcers,
the word "Sabbath" ought to have been obtained here from its
association with my father's name, and especially as this usage, is also
Rector's, who has to be treated on the telepathic hypothesis as
Mrs. Piper's secondary personality. . .

While I am indicating illusions of memory on the part of the living
that are duplicated in these sittings I may as well indicate two. more,
which will show the need of some charity for spirit communications.
In my conversation with one of the persons living and named in this
record, I was asked by him : " How is your sister Eliza, who lives in
Philadelphia?" Now my sister by the name of Eliza, or Lida, was
never known or heard of by this man, and she does not live in
Philadelphia. It was my aunt Nannie who lived in Philadelphia,
Pa., and it was she that he referred to in the question. When IttoM
him that he was mistaken in regard to the name, he could not believe
it, and it was some time before I could make the matter clear to him.
About an hour later his wife, who had not been in the room during
this conversation, asked me : " How is your Aunt Eliza, who lives in
Philadelphia V* I found that she also meant my aunt Nannie. Now
my aunt Eliza lives in Ohio and not in Philadelphia. Both of these
aunts, Nannie and Eliza, had recently lost their husbands, one of
whom, James Carruthers, was a communicator in this record. It is
not probable that either of the inquirers had heard of his death. The
other, the husband of aunt Nannie, was a minister of some standing
in his church, and his death was known to the inquirers, as I found by

xll] Observation** of \ Certain- Trance Phenomena, 231

interrogating them. Both were thus mistaken in regard to the name
and place of residence of the person of whom they were inquiring.
If a discarnate spirit had committed it, no apology would have been
allowable for it, except that telepathy, in spite of its amazing and
elastic achievements, might slip in this way, but a human intelli-
gence never !

There were several mistakes in the use or relationship of proper
names which had already been given rightly by certain communicators,
the error sometimes being by the person most naturally expected to
make such an error. For instance, my deceased brother Charles, who
never, when living, knew or heard of the Lucy McClellan inen'tjoned
in this record, and with whom, of course, the name was never associated
in my mind, called her his aunt^ when she ' was his cousin" Wf.
"step-sister," p. 462). . ' . / V l \ "l[ ,V„ ,

There is another remarkable illustration of Iboth the dramatic
play of personality and' at least' apparent mistake that should be
examined in detail. ft is the case in which' my cousin Robert McClellan
endeavours to speak the name of his wife, which was evidently not
understood by Rector (pp. 442, 508). My cousin Robert McClellan
made a reference apparently to his "dear' relatives" and exhibited
his usual confusion. But Rector tells the communicator at once
to " speak slower, I cannot hear it," and then says to him :
4< Well, go out then and come again with it,* and receives the
reply, "Aft right." Rector then says |to me: *rYes, but I did
not get., what he said last. He said something about Lucy,
bat it was not for thee, friend," evidently alluding by the word
"friend" to Dr. Hodgson, because he' at once explains to Dr.
Hodgson that ''the Lucy is hot Jessie's sister," meaning Miss Lucy
Edmunds and her sister Jessie, who had at some previous time com-
municated with Miss Edmunds, Dri Hodgson's secretary. *He then
said directly to me that the " Lucy " was for me. Assuming that it
was my cousin Robert McClellan that was communicating, I asked
him what relation this Lucy was to him, hoping he would say his
wife, and received the irrelevant answer, " Mother said it only a
moment ago, and she is on father's side, and he comes and speaks of her
often." Dr. Hodgson then asked Rector to " state explicitly who this
Lucy is," and Rector replied :

" Did not hear it. All right. We will see about it as both Annie and
her father have brought her here several times, and aunt Nannie will know
well. (I shall ask aunt Nannie about it.) She is a cousin of thine, friend.
Dost thou not hear? (Yes. I hear clearly). But do not remember.
(I remember one cousin Nannie and one aunt Nannie). Yes, she is. Aunt
Nannie is in the body and cousin Nannie is in the spirit. (Yes, your • . •
what relation is this cousin Nannie to you T) She is my sister. (R. H.
Who* sister?) LUCY'S " (p. 442).

Digitized by Google

232

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

Now I can make both the truth and the possible confusion in this
passage clear only by an elaborate explanation which will show it
perfectly intolerable on the telepathic hypothesis. First let me name
the dramatis personce in the case. There are my cousin Robert
McClellan, the communicator ; my aunt Nannie, who is also his aunt
Nannie ; my cousin Nannie, who is his sister, and whom he constantly
called " aunt Nannie," during the long illness in which she nursed him,
in deference to the habits of his children; "cousin Nannie," which I
interpret as a mistake of the " machine " for " Annie," referring to my
sister, the communicator's cousin ; and Rector.

I did not at the time understand the communicator's reference to
his mother and the statement that *' she is on father's side." Hence
Dr. Hodgson's request to state explicitly who this Lucy was. Now
when Rector said : " Both Annie and her father have brought her here
several times," he most evidently had his mother, my father's sister,
or possibly his stepmother in mind. Now, again, when Rector says :
" Aunt Nannie will know well," he makes a statement which will be true
whether it refers to the aunt of both the communicator and myself by
that name, or to his sister whom he called " aunt " as explained. Both
would know what I was expected to know here. But when I said that
I should " ask aunt Nannie about it," I had in mind the aunt of both
of us, and hence a most interesting possible confusion begins. The
answer : " She is a cousin of thine, friend," is absurd in relation to
what I had in mind. It was correct as referring to his sister.

Suppose the statement " Aunt Nannie will know well " refers to
my aunt, and the answer to my question, if the " she " refers to her,
is both absurd and false, and telepathy has no claims. If the phrase
"aunt Nannie" refers to my cousin's sister, as explained, and the
" she " is supposed also to refer to her, the statement that she is my
cousin is correct, but it is not what I had in my mind at the time, nor
does it represent anything that I knew of, as the discovery of the
communicator's habit of calling his sister his " aunt " was an unknown
fact to me at the time, and one that it was not possible under the
circumstances for me to know, as my notes show (p. 508), and telepathy
would have tremendous odds to face, as it would involve the instan-
taneous act of acquiring the fact in the distant West from an unknown
memory. Assuming then that the communicator had his sister in
mind, called " aunt " as explained, and that he did not understand
my reference to aunt Nannie, the aunt of both of us, his answer :
"she is a cousin of thine, friend," made by Rector is correct. I
had in mind in my statement: "I remember one cousin Nannie
and one aunt Nannie," the former the sister of the communicator
and the latter the aunt of both of us. Supposing the communicator
to have in mind the same persons/ his answer that : " Aunt Nannie

xxx] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 233

is in the body and cousin Nannie is in the spirit/1 is only half true
and is half false, so that telepathy here breaks down. Supposing that
he had in mind his sister, when speaking of "aunt Nannie," as
explained, and my sister Annie, his cousin, when he said " cousin
N'&nnie," he is perfectly correct in his statements, but the name
" cousin Nannie" is false and not gotten by telepathy, as I have no
cousin Nannie on the "other side," while I never knew that he
called his sister by the name of " aunt." Again, supposing that he
had in mind the aunt of both of us when he said " aunt Nannie," and
my cousin, his sister, when he said " cousin Nannie," he would have
been right in the statement about the aunt of both of us, but
wrong about the other, as she is still living, so that telepathy breaks
down with this. But if he missed getting the word " cousin " in my
question, and had in mind his sister, as explained, when he said
" aunt Nannie " his answer is correct, but the act is too much like
real communications with mistakes to appeal to telepathy, as she was
my cousin, his sister, and called " aunt " by him as explained. On this
interpretation also the statement that she was Lucy's sister is true to
the extent of being her sister-in-law, the name of the real sister to this
" Lucy," his wife, having been given later (p. 452). If again he has
in mind the "Nannie" who is aunt to us both the answer to my
question, whether the word " cousin " is caught or not, is absurd and
false, and telepathy is again lost. The consequence of all this is that
telepathy and the standpoint of that hypothesis only leads to hopeless
confusion and contradiction, and we have to choose between making
the case spiritistic or nothing at all. But the mere names and the
approximation to the truth in any form of the confusion we may
choose to suppose prove that the passage cannot be repudiated. Hence
the following statement of the case will make it clear.1

The supposed confusion occurs wholly from assuming the stand-
point of my mind for understanding the case. Let me, therefore,
reconstruct it with the interpretation of my questions as they might
have been understood on the "other side" under the conditions
described, and we shall see how simple it is on the spiritistic
hypothesis. To do this I shall have to alter my questions to suit the
assumptions involved, which the reader will see are warranted from
what I have said. I shall also throw the aunt of both of us out of

1 After attempting to understand the complicated analysis and explanation of
this incident, the reader will appreciate Rector's situation as well as his own if he
win compare the passage in the Theatetus of Plato, where the latter gives the
student an example of the complications with which he has to deal in the problem of
ascertaining the truth about the nature of knowledge. Jowett's translation of Plato,
VoL IV., p. 266. Third Edition. For the benefit of American readers I shall refer
also to the smaller American edition of Jowett's translation of Plato, Vol. III-i

p. 397.

234

J. a 3yalop; PkJX . £f*kt

account, as it was a mere chance , that the statement about her knowing
the names well was true and it is not necessary so to interpret i&

Let me state again the dramatis persona* of the reconstruction, and
avoid the false use of the terms and names from the point of view of
my mind. We shall then have the communicator's mother ; my father,
the communicator's uncle ; Lucy, the communicator's wife ; the " aunt
Nannie," his sister and my cousin, as explained above ; and my sister
Annie, the communicator's cousin and by mistake of the "machine*
called " Nannie." 1 start with my question directed to the communi-
cator. The following will be the reconstruction :

" (But what relation was Lucy to you 1 ) mother said it only a
moment ago, and she is on father's aide, and he comes and speaks of
her [Lucy] often.

(R.H. : Yes. Rector, .kindly get George to state explicitly, if
possible, who thrisoLuofi is. I^ast time I .think, yon. wrote it several
times, but when I was out of the room, perhaps the time before, and
our friend here I think did not read it at the time.)

[Reciter Did n<5t .hear* it. All right. We will see about it as
both Annie and her father have brought her here several times, and
sister Nannie will knew well. t

(8. 1. 1 shall aak Nannie, about it*) t

[Rector *} fiim k> a /cousin of .thine, friend. Dost thou not hear!
(S.:.ye9,:lheac«learly.) ., ;

[Rector :]. Bat! do not remember 1 *. •'*.'».

(S. : .1 remember one cousin JSTaxurie [communicator's sister] and
one aunt Nannie) t . i: j' .

[Rector or oommtinioator. :] Yes, she is.. " Aunt" [sister] Nannie
is in the body and cousin Annie is in the spirit.

(S. : Yes, your . . . what relation is this my cousin Nannie
to you?)

[Communicator : ] She is my sister.

(R. H. : , Whose sister ?)

[Rector :] Lucy's. [In reality sister-tn-Zau;.]

The last answer Ought to have been "mine" meaning the com-
municator's sister, but he evidently disappears from inability to
communicate, as ne had to do before and Rector answers for him with
an at kempt nearly successful, to identify this Lucy. Throwing out
Rector's slight mistake we have a perfectly intelligible story from the
standpoint of an assumed communicator, and absolutely nothing on
any other supposition but what is correct enough, though confused, to
. prevent us from repudiating it. Telepathy disappears in worse con-
*$sion than its supposed powers can endure for a moment, and we
" t| chnnsA spiritism or nothing as our theory. It would not alter
"See to suppose that Rector when he said : " Aunt Nannie will

Digitized by Google

silt] Observation* of Certain Truww Phenomena. :3ft5

know well," had added the word " Aunt " as interpreting my cousin^
possible use of Nannie to mean my Aunt Nannie previously mentioned
It would only increase the confusion in the mind of the tranoe
personality which is supposed to be so good at telepathy ! 1

Two of the most interesting instances of mistake are those in the
use of the word " library " to denote the sitting-room and " Sunday "
to denote Sabbath by my father. He never called the sitting-room
his "library," according to the memory of all the family. I never
heard it, especially as he had no special shelves even for his very
few books. As to Sunday, my notes and previous remarks explain
this (pp. 432, 67). Father was religiously scrupulous about saying
Sabbath, and it would call forth a severe rebuke upon any of us to say
Sunday, and we never did it. In fact it has been only during the last
few years that I have adopted the use of Sunday, in deference to the
environment in which X msve. But assuming intermediaries, aft. the
case represents their constant intervention and assistance, we find a
circumstance that is a centre shot at tejepatby, besides explaining the
source of confusion and mistakes. The effect of these, mistakes against
telepathy would be the same without the assumption o£ inftrmedjarws,
because^ with the enormous, flowers attributed to telepathy *nd" neces-
sary to explain at least. 75 .per cent, of the messages, if spiritism be
exc}oded> the absence of hesitation in the language under all conditions
of acquisition should be followed by as accurate a sejscjbion^/L &e
right words in these simple instances as in .any otheft fap&iaUy: ajs
Imperator and Rector them$elye$ natural usfe tfce word <' Sa&bfcth " in
their oojnmjutfcqtiopa. . In one of these instances (pj 432) the use of
the word u Sunday " was acoompanied hy hesitation before the word
was wistten, as the; record shows. Now, in this very sitting we are
told directly that George Peiham is assisting my father (p. 435), and
there are several indications of the fact by G. P. himself (Cf. pp. 211—
213), and from what we know of him he would never use the word
M Sabbath." The hesitation could then be due to his failure to catch
the meaning of my fathers message, which would most naturally
be expressed in the word "Sabbath." There is no directs evidence
that G. P. was an intermediary in the Other instance in j which the
word "Snndajr". was used* but we are not always informed of
who the intermediaries are besides Rector. In one case, I should
never have known that Q. P. was an intermediary in the case of
some communications from my brother, had it not been for G. P.'s
own statement the next day, in which he said that he had helped a
man by the name of Charles the last time (p. 468). But this one
instance of the influence of intermediaries in the message containing
"Sonday " shows how the phenomenon can be explained, while the fact
of the error which tends to disprove personal identity both displaces

Digitized by Google

236

J. H. Eyslop, PhD.

[part

telepathy and, especially in connection with the hesitation accompany-
ing it, confirms spiritism. It is much the same with the use of the
word " library," which was not natural with father. It is very com-
mon to use the term for " sitting room," which is the natural
expression for my father, and it might be that " library " is the natural
term for Rector in expressing the idea here involved, especially if it is
the usual form in England, as he purports to be one of the " controls "
of Stainton Moses. This conception of the case is well borne out in
the message delivered to Dr. Hodgson about the "coach" when
referring to the rough roads and country (p. 401). "Coach" is a
word that father would never use except in reference to a certain
vehicle in the cities, which he never visited more than half-a-dozen
times in his life. The word he always used was " carriage," and he
would laugh at himself as well as be laughed at, if he used " coach "
to express what is conveyed to me by that term in the message
mentioned. But the usage in England is very different, as I under-
stand it, and if Rector is to be treated as influenced by his connec-
tion with Stainton Moses, or personally acquainted with English
habits of expression, we have both an explanation of the variation
from my father's usage and an index of the limitations of telepathy
(Cf, Phinuit's expressions in England, Proceedings, Vol. VI., pp. 517,
519, 520, 521). This process makes no use of the associates in my
memory, as has to be supposed in other cases, but acts precisely as an
independent intelligence would act, that is, misses in the game of
deception that has to be attributed to it the simplest resource for
its consistency and defence. The spiritistic theory, however, gives
both unity and consistency to the whole phenomenon.

Another type of mistake has already been alluded to in the discus-
sion of the dramatic play of personality, but not fully examined in its
importance. It is illustrated almost exclusively in Dr. Hodgson's
sittings for me, though it appears occasionally in the communications
of my uncle and cousin when I am present, as it appears that they
have to seek the aid of intermediaries more generally than father.
But in Dr. Hodgson's sittings for me the communicator naturally
mistakes my presence at times and addresses Dr. Hodgson as if he
were addressing me personally. Of course it is not absolutely
necessary that we should suppose him unconscious of the situation, as
a man might address another in this way with distinct knowledge that
he was employing an intermediary. But the evident understanding
at the outset until corrected that he was to communicate with me
directly on this occasion, rather favours the supposition that the cora-
nnicator was not perfectly clear as to the real situation, and it would
natural to use the second person as he did, until he later and
enly awakened to the fact that he was speaking to Dr. Hodgson.

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 237

In one remarkable passage, however (p. 387), " Answer this for me,
James, when you come again," he combines the address to the second
person with the consciousness that I was not present, so that we must
be cautious in supposing that the confusion about me is greater than it
may be when using the second instead of the third person. But
whether conscious or unconscious, it involves precisely the mistake
that telepathy ought not to make. It should play its part more
consistently. If this power of dramatic play and simulation of
reality were one-half what it must be in order to escape the
spiritistic theory, there should be no such mistakes as the con
fusion of the second and third persons in the communications.
We can sustain telepathy only on two suppositions in the case.
First, that it knows enough to thus commit the mistake purposely in
order to imitate more thoroughly the requirements of the spiritistic
theory which demand the probability of such errors. But this
contradicts its limitations in all mistakes in which it selects words or
facts against personal identity, though consistent with the influence
of intermediary and independent intelligence. This shrewdness of
telepathy is not present in crucial situations testing its supposed
qualities. Secondly, we may adduce the gratuitous hypothesis that
there were alterations of rapport between Dr. Hodgson in Boston and
myself in New York. But the facte cannot be studied with this
conception in view without discovering some striking contradictions,
to say nothing of its naturally preposterous and unsupported nature
as a supposition. For instance, in the first sitting with Dr. Hodgson,
in spite of the explanation of the situation to the communicator, he
addresses me instead of Dr. Hodgson, though the supposition is that
the rapport is with Dr. Hodgson, as most of the sitting is taken up
with an explanation of what the communicator is to do. In the
second sitting for about the first half of it he addresses me, until after
an interval of respite he suddenly discovers, as it were, that he is
frQlriTig to Dr. Hodgson, and then proceeds to speak to him of me in
the third person. But all this while, whether the rapport be
constantly in one place or alternatively in Boston and New York, the
facts communicated remain from the same source, and the play of
personality changes to suit the spiritistic theory. Comparison of the
situations in the first and second sittings by Dr. Hodgson will show
how natural the procedure is. In the first the communicator starts with
the preconception that he is sending messages direct to me, but in the
second, after Dr. Hodgson's explanation in the first, the communicator
gradually becomes aware of the situation that he can command better,
and he does not have to think merely of the messages and the person
for whom they are intended, but he can also hold in mind the fact that
they are directed to another person. It requires an extra effort of

attention to keep the complexity of the situation In *vibwy and eon
frequently to distinguish rightly the persons involved While occupiec
with th6 delivery of messages. The whole action, therefore, is that oi
ah independent intelligence with all its limitations and difficulties,
instead of telepathic powers which never know when to plaj
consistently the r6U of the infinite.

I shall not go over again the mistakes connected with the name oi
my stepmother, and the confusion in the attempts to get it rightly
My notes and the discussion of the dramatic play of personality illus
trate this fully enough, and the slightest observation ought to
recognise the absurdity of all this enormous effort to secure so simple a
name by telepathy when other names far more difficult had beer
obtained so easily. This absurdity of the telepathic hypothesis in the
instance present is especially noticeable when we recall the fact that,
by supposition, telepathy was able to avoid the use of the word'" Hunt '
when saymg " Nannie " for my stepmother, thus carefully enougb
distinguishing between two persons with entirely different names and
yet could give only one of them !

(4) Automatisms.

The last type of phenomena illustrating confusion is represented
by what I have called " automatisms " in my notes.1 They occur
generally at the close of some period of communication, or when some

1 Apropos of the possible causes of mistake and confusion, in so far as the con-
ditions affecting automatism on both sides may produce them, I may refer to some
observations of Mr. Douse, who had the task of reading nearly a thousand answers
of candidates at a certain University Examination. They illustrate the influence oi
normal automatism in a variety of ways affecting erroneous spelling and abbreviations.
Mr. Douse calls them minor psychological interferences. He makes the following
introductory statement before classifying the phenomena observed.— {Mind* N. S.,
Vol. IX. pp. 85-93).

" The average age of the candidates was over nineteen years ; and except some half-
dozen (who are here left out of account) they were all excellent spellers. Being set
down to write, under pressure and against time, compositions of their own upon given
questions, those young people may be considered to have been involuntary subjects of
a psychological experiment, with the advantage to the experimenter that they were
totally unaware of it. Their comparatively few and far between mistakes were at first
passed as sporadic eccentricities ; but when mistakes of a similar character, and some
of identical form, appeared again and again in the answers of different candidates, it
seemed to me obvious that they must be due to a common cause or common causes ;
and this became demonstrable as soon as I had jotted down and classified a few
scores of them. Speaking generally, the cause of the perturbations, except as regards
one class, was found to be a momentary withdrawal of attention from the point at
which the pen had arrived in the process of writing, and its transference to some
neighbouring point in the line of ideas which the mind had evolved or was striving to
evolve."

There were five classes of errors observed by Mr. Douse which he named and of
which he gave numerous illustrations. In a footnote, he remarks that be observed
precisely the same mistakes in (liferent persons and marks the illustrations' aocoiding

Digitized by Google

tras]1* Observations of Certain Tremce Phenomena. 239

condition of Syncope crjmee on, or whatever we may caff i£e condition
for lack of better knowledge. They are not intended 'M m6ssagtt to
the sitter by the communicator, but nevertheless they slip fchrbugfc<by
8om% means or other. I shall choose a few instances for illustration.
In the sitting for December 23rd, 1898 (p. 307), there was the absurd
and irrelevant message written out : " I say give me my hat." This
would have been meaningless to me, had it not been for my brother's
observation that it was a very common expression of my father in
situations when he was suddenly required to meet some emergency
and go out of doors or do some errand. We must remember that he
could walk only with great difficulty, and often asked for some such
service to save himself time and trouble. Supposing him in danger
of a sort of hypnotic state when communicating, if anything like
gy&oope occurred that necessitated his retiring from- the " mackhie,'' we
cam well understand how the famlHar phrase might uncoiiscfously^btain
utterance, and it occurred twice ub&*w similar circtunstatiosfir; It
occurred in the first sitting (p. 307) just before my brother- Ctoirlos
alluded to my f&tne*, who apjiarently could not, yet commnateates -and
was' repeated under somewhat similar oirounlfirtanete at- th^^se#dnd

to the number with the1 Latin words saspe (freqoeni) and bUh (twice). ' The following
summarises instances in each class.

(1) ProUpsis, or "assimilation from ahead. * Skekel for shekel, spooped for
stooped, prounounce (saepc), prounoun (saepe), tabtenacle, "The general ruled is
followed," etc * * :

(2) Metapedesis, or "overleaping." Possive for pbflsessfoe, preoed (bis) for
preceded, combing for combining, rembranoe for remembrance, voculary for
Tooabolary.

(3) MetaUage or " cross compensation." Silibants {bis) for sibilants, patalals for
iralat*1"J pbamplets (bis) for pamphlets, padoga for pagoda, etc.

(4) Opisthomimesis or " assimilation from the rear." Biship, synonyns, househould,
"The verb does not agree with both of the subjects, both (but) only with one," " Again
in doing a certain again (action)," eta

(5) "Contamination." A candidate, as often happened, would spell "Teutonio"
nine times correctly, but the tenth time he would write "Tuetonic" through the
unconscious influence of the very similar Tuesday ; similarly " villian " (villain) was
affected by "ruffian"; "goldern" by "leathern"; "Lords Templars " by " Lords
Temporal," and once" The troubled Tiber chaffing with her shores."

In Mrs. Piper's automatic writing we often observe suoh mistakes in so far as they
are antomatiams, but I cannot classify them under the heads above enumerated in all
esafee. They also occur with the sitter in taking his notes or copying the communi-
cation*. For instance, while writing this very note, in the first draft of the very next
sentence, by "Prolepsis" I wrote "collecting they (them) over a wide area,
of experiments, they are," etc. But whether classifiable or not, as they may be by
collecting them over a wide area of experiments, they are automatisms that often
give rise to an apparent error in the messages. Sometimes the error is so apparent
from the context thai it hardly needs to be reckoned as such. I shall mention a few.

Often Mrs. Piper's hand inscribes " right " for " write," and vice versa, and " too "
for "to," and vice versa. Onoe in my record Rector wrote "Arthur" for "after"
fm. 4M\* Vhacnsetof "JPrad" for "Prank'' (p, 338) illustrates another form. *
was written so that a part of the " N " was made as in " FRAN," andthen finished

240

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

sitting (p. 313). At the third sitting (p. 332), the strange inco-
herency, "Do you hear her sing 1 " occurred. Again at the fourth
sitting (p. 336) : " Where is my coat ? " I would treat the reference
to his pen (p. 378) as an automatism, though a more definite and
intelligent allusion was made to it later. But all these phenomena do
not show the slightest resemblance to what the general trend of our
assumed telepathy indicates. These automatisms exhibit no conscious
effort to indicate personal identity, as telepathy must be supposed to
do, if tolerable at alL They are just such wandering flights of con-
sciousness as we should expect of a mind labouring under mental
conditions that fade now and then into delirium, and that may be
equally affected by physiological and psychological influences acting
in the organism of the medium. The intervals between communicators
are often marked by traces of automatism, as if there were inter-
mundane or other influences at work to disturb the process of
communicating. Hence they are intelligible on the spiritistic, and not
on the telepathic hypothesis.

The automatisms representing Rector's questions to communicators,
remarks to them, and communicators' remarks to each other, are not only

the letter "D," and then "FRED" was given. The crowding of the thoughts
together, as in " Opisthomimesis " above, might thus aooount for the confusion of the
two canes, the curved handled one and the one with the initials carved in the end
(p. 397). We can imagine also how " Campaign " might become " camp " (p. 371).
See also the possible confusion of "Maggie" for "Nannie." The spelling of
" Hyomei" as " Himi " (p. 336), while a natural phonetic error, illustrates the diffi-
culties in the case of unfamiliar words, though afterward in Dr. Hodgson's sittings
on my behalf, without any previous indication from either Dr. Hodgson or myself,
the word was spelled almost correctly, namely; as " Hyomi " (p. 391). The mistake
of " Charles " for " Carru there " (pp. 422-423), especially when we remember that
it was pronounced in the family as " d-others," as in "brothers," is perfectly
intelligible. This remark also is reinforced by the interesting fact that, after writing
the name correctly myself all my life, once in writing my notes on this record I spelled
it "Carthers" and preserved the instance as an illustration of how the name
"Charles " might be given for this uncle.

A most interesting instance of automatic mistake also is Dr. Hodgson's writing
"there" for "here" in my first sitting (p. 309), and repeating it in the revision.
Similar also to those above classified was the printer's mistake in setting up "Miss
Hodgson" for "Dr. Hodgson" after the name " Miss S. " in the previous sentence
(p. 346). Another instance of the same import as the first of these two was the
addition by Dr. Hodgson of the words "Sounds like" before the word "bone "
(p. 327) after the expression " Sounds like bone " had been written once, though the
words "sounds like " had been used but once by the trance personality. This, of course,
had to be cut out of the detailed record as not a part of the original automatic writing,

I may remark also an interesting automatism of my own which is very frequent.
In writing a word containing the letter " e " I often dot it foran " i." This, however,
I never do except when it is liable to be mistaken by the reader for an " L " While
writing rapidly I fail to make the loop, and the appearance of the letter is unmistak-
ably that of an " i." Now, the interesting part of it is that, although I am thinking
only of " e " at the time, the motor action of the arm is adjusted to the appearance
of the letter in the field of vision, and I discover my mistake only after it has
been committed*

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 241

different in kind from those that come from a regular communicator, but
they expose more evidently than the others the weakness of telepathy
as an explanation of the whole case. They represent the sensibility
of the "machine" to perfectly intelligent conversation on the "other
side," which there is no necessity for our getting, except to dis-
credit the hypothesis of telepathy. They are usually clear and intelli-
gible statements which we can easily understand as representing a
dramatic play out of our sight, and are in no respect either passive
reflections of telepathic messages or the reproduction of the sitter's
memories. The spiritistic character and pertinence of all this ought
to be evident at a glance, though it could have little or no weight
without prior evidence of personal identity. But when it supple-
ments this evidence and does not constitute any intended part of the
process involved in getting that evidence it shatters the telepathic
theory by attributing to it the elasticity of many very different
processes.

Perhaps the same use can be made of Mrs. Piper's deliverances
ns she emerges from the trance. But I shall not discuss them at
length, and the reader can study them for himself. They are
especially rich in confusion and automatisms. But the important
fact about them is that they are the only instances in which any
traces of secondary personality in the ordinary conception of the
term can be found. This is a fact of very great significance, since
it represents an abrupt break from the condition in which messages
are easier, clearer, coherent, pertinent, and unassociated with anything
that we know of secondary personality, to the condition in which
messages are very incoherent and the indications of secondary per-
sonality are very marked. This ought not to be the case if the main
phenomena were not preferably spiritistic, at least in the perfection
of their representation of that hypothesis.

242

J. H. Hyslojh PhJ).

[part

CHAPTER V.

Difficulties and Objections.

The first thing to be said in regard to the difficulties and objections
to the spiritistic theory is that, from the standpoint of my own sittings
alone, there are no serious obstacles to the doctrine. If I had to judge
the case by my own experiments and record alone, I do not see how I
could avoid the conclusion that a future life is absolutely demonstrated
by them The clue even to such difficulties as have to be discussed has
been obtained from sources outside the Piper phenomena, and but for
them I should have nothing to suggest the cautiousness that I have
maintained. The evidence for personal identity in this record is so
overwhelming, that when we dismiss fraud from consideration and
reckon the mistakes and confusions in the favour of spiritism instead
of difficulties and objections, we should not naturally suspect telepath\r
as the most probable hypothesis in the case. The spectre which that
doctrine raises is of the Society's own making in phenomena wholly
outside the field I am considering here, and obtains its cogency
far more from our mental habits than from the facts of this
record. If the mistakes and confusions preponderated, the case
might not be so cogent ; at least it would not appear so to the
average mind, though the scientist might well suspect whether
that might not be the proper result to be expected, considering
the abnormal conditions of all sorts under which work of this kind has
to be done. But astonishing as it must be to any one who would
a priori suppose that difficulties in communication would be insuper-
able, even on the assumption that anything like a spirit existed, the
mistakes and confusions bear no suspicious proportion to the clear
and significant truths, even in the communication of the most
complex incidents, and consequently they not only become subordinated
to the conclusion which is necessary to explain the pertinent matter,
but also serve the spiritistic view by virtue of the limitations which they
suggest in a hypothesis that these limitations contradict. To all who
are not perfectly familiar with these phenomena and who ignore the
fact that obstacles to any form of communication must be admitted,
and this to a larger extent for spiritism than for telepathy — to all these
the imperfections of the messages and the positive errors will appear a
difficulty. But I think the true scientist, whatever his attitude
toward this subject, would expect error and confusion, even on the
supposition of existing spirits, and might expect them to an extent

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Plwnomena. 243

that would exclude the possibility of any proof whatever of their
existence.1 The assumption, of course, would be a priori and worth-
less in case experience or facts proved it false, but it is the most natural
one to make until the evidence at least modifies it.

It will be apparent, therefore, after what has been already said on
the subject of mistakes and confusions, why I treat their significance
as the reverse of an obstacle to spiritism Hence such suspense of

1 As an illustration of what the scientist ought most naturally to expect in
alleged communications from discarnate spirits I may be permitted by the
Kantian idealist to quote that Coryphsean authority in modern philosophy. He had
frankly and candidly faced the issue in problems of this sort and actually outlined the
whole method of psychical research a hundred years before any practical attempt was
made to apply it. It was the experience of Immanuel Swedenborg that prompted
him to do so. The letter to Fraulein von Knobloch in 1758 shows how seriously he
considered Swedentorg's phenomena, though we should to-day discriminate between
various types of them more sharply than Kant may have done. But Kant recognised
very clearly that any communications purporting to come from a transcendental and
discarnate consciousness, if in any respect genuine, must contend with pathological
conditions, and he represented these conditions as necessarily more abnormal than
experience has shown them to be. Let me quote Dr. Edward Caird's account of
Kant's doctrine, especially as there is no evidence in our list of membership that Dr.
Caird is influenced in his statement of the problem by any preconceptions that
onr work might have produced, and yet no clearer statement of the general
problem could be imagined. In his u Critical Philosophy of Kant " (Vol. I.,
p. 150), after imagining the possibility that there is a world of spiritual
consciousness which may affect our moral consciousness in some way, Dr. Caird
says, representing the conception which Kant took: " The only difficulty that remains
unexplained is, how we are to reconcile the existence of such a spiritual community
with the fact that we are so seldom conscious of it. For the spiritual world is present
to man, if at all, only in oocas:onal glimpses, which, besides, have often a somewhat
uncertain and even irrational character. This, however, is already explained by what
has been said of the nature of the consciousness of man an contrasted with that of
purely spiritual beings. For what we experience as spirits will not naturally enter
into that consciousness which we have of ourselves as men ; or if it does so enter at
all, it will only be under abnormal conditions, and even then the intimations from the
►pint world will necessarily take the form of the consciousness into which they
intrude. Spiritual realities will to pictured as objects and events in the natural
world, and all the imperfections of the medium will affect the vision. For men in
general such perceptions will have something of the character of disease ; and if there
are a few exceptional individuals who are so constituted as to be continuously con-
«cioG8 of spiritual influences, their minds will be so much drawn out of proper balance
an to the things cf this world by the confusing presence of another, that they will
often be regarded by other men as insane. In this way it only needs a little inge-
cu ty to explain all the facts of ghost-seeing in accordance with our primary assump
tion as to the relations of the two worlds. ' For metaphysical hypotheses have
wonderful pliancy, and it would show a great want of ingenuity not to be able to
adapt this hypothesis to every story of supernatural visitations, and that without
taking trouble to investigate its truth, which in many cases would be impos-
sible, and in yet more would be discourteous, to attempt.1" {Cf. Kant's "Traume
env sGeistersehers," pp. 336-349, Hartenstein's edition. Ste also Goerwitz' transla-
tion of the same. Preface, pp. i.-xi., and Introduction, pp. 1-33.) With such a view as
this before us our problem is simply one in which the evidence for personal identity must
sufficient to overcome the objections from telepathy, and mistakes and confusion'
«riH utand in favour of a spiritistic hypothesis. [Cf. Appendix VII., p. 643.]

244

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

judgment as I have to entertain in the phenomena of this record must
come from outside sources.

The first objection which I have to meet is one that is constantly
advanced by scientific men, or by men who are everywhere presunnxl
to be such. It is not an objection from the standpoint of the intelli-
gent psychical researcher, nor from that of this record, which deals
exclusively with the problem of personal identity, but it is the objec-
tion of those who wholly misunderstand the nature of the primary
question at issue. Nevertheless it must be stated and met. It is that
spiritism cannot be accepted or proved until we know something about
the conditions of life in the transcendental world alleged as a conse-
quence of these experiments and other similar phenomena. This
demand is made by two classes of minds. There is first the average
person who is interested in the form of tlria life rather than the fact of
it, not having any doubt about the fact, or any appreciation of the
materialistic doctrine which makes any such life extremely doubtful.
Then there is the scientific (?) mind which follows in the wake of this
false idea of the common mind, and though it is not infected with the
same morbid interest in either the fact of survival or the kind of life
it promises, is nevertheless possessed of the same preconceptions of
what the problem is. The objection, therefore, must be considered
very carefully, and it can be viewed from two wholly different concep-
tions of the term "proof" as bearing both upon the problem of personal
identity and upon that of the conditions of life in a transcendental
existence.

The first conception of " proof " to be noticed is that of any process
by which certitude of conviction or knowledge is obtained in the mind
of the person who acquires the conviction. This may be effected in
two ways: ^1) By the ratiocinative process, or the syllogism; and (2)
By personal experience, insight, perception, or realisation in conscious-
ness. Ultimately this latter process is the expression and source of
the " proof " we are considering ; for in all cases in which reasoning
can figure as producing personal conviction the function of immediate
apprehension is involved in the appreciation of the cogency of the
reasoning itself. The subject of the conviction must appreciate tho i
identity of the conceptions with which the ratiocinative process deals,
so that personal realisation in consciousness is the first and the last
criterion of the " proof " in question.

But for a man to demand this form of " proof " from me or from
the Society is essentially unscientific and unreasonable, because by its
very nature it can be obtained by no one except the man who asks it.
He asks us to produce a personal experience for him which involves
killing him to get it. He wants to be relieved of responsibility for his
convictions and yet insists on a criterion which necessarily implies

Digitized by Google

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 245

that responsibility. It is the duty of the man who makes this demand
to do his own proving in the conception of the case denned. This form
of " proof " cannot be supplied by any one except the subject, even in
present life, to say nothing of any supposed transcendental world.

I shall not deny any man the right to set up so high a standard for
the determination of his own personal convictions, as I not only admit
that right, but also admit that it is not safe for most persons, without
the most thorough acquaintance with scientific methods, to accept any
other standard than personal experience, though this may be exposed
to fallibility. Our sanity depends upon putting the standard of con-
viction very high. But we must not confuse this right or duty with
scientific method. We cannot make our personal conversion the
criterion of truth or the measure of what is meant by scientific
method. It may be our only personal defence against illusion, but
science does not have to guarantee any man against the abuses of
his own judgment. It supplies data and asks for the best available
hypothesis to explain them. The individual may be as rigid as he
pleases in the exaction of evidence, but he must not make his personal
conviction any duty of mine before I have either convinced myself or
satisfied the demands of scientific method as it is understood in all the
sciences.

Hence the second form of " proof " is precisely this method. It
simply collects facts under suitable conditions for the determination
of rational hypotheses between which we have to choose. The
" proof" in this case still leaves the responsibility for belief in the
subject of it, but it permits the data to be furnished by some one
else, and the issue stated so that the question is merely whether the
facts come under an old, or require a new hypothesis. It is simply
Inductive Method, as usually defined, and determines the degree of
probability in proportion to the application of the Canon of Agree-
ment, or that of Difference. I shall assume that the reader is familiar
wfth tliis. I am concerned only in making clear that men shall not
demand of this or any other work in the determination of truth that
it shall employ any other means than the facts of present experience
to solve any of its problems. They had better remain unsolved, if we
are to leave any and every individual to determine the standard of
science by his mere " will to believe or disbelieve," valuable as
this is for security against the illusions to which we may be
exposed in new inquiries. Still, old doctrines are not so sacred
or so well founded by virtue of mere age or habit as always to
escape the illusions of another type that may be as dangerous
as any against which we try to protect ourselves. Consequently,
" proof " in scientific parlance is the presentation and production
present facts that enable us to calculate the probabilities of the cou

246

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

of nature, whether every person is able to see them or not. But it
does not impose any impossibilities. It does not require us to supplant
the process of individual experience, nor does it require us to make
the realisation in consciousness of any fact the test of all rationality.
It suffices if it can unify experience in terms of probabilities when it
can do no more.

Now, in the application of this method to the phenomena of
spiritualism our problem is simply to collect the facts and try
hypotheses, no matter whither they lead. Now, when it comes to
collecting facts or statements purporting to represent a transcendental
world we must remember that there are two wholly distinct problems
involved which ought not to be confused. The first is the existence
of such a world, and the second is the conditions that characterise it.
What will " prove " or render possible or probable the first will or may
leave the second untouched. Taken in the special form of spiritism
the two problems are (1) the existence of spirits, and (2) their mode of
life. Unfortunately it seems that the majority of mankind, scientific
and unscientific alike, have such a morbid interest in the latter ques-
tion that they wholly ignore both the place which it should have in
the truly scientific mind and the necessary insolubility of the problem
in any such terms as they have been accustomed to represent their
knowledge. Our chief complaint against the average spiritualist is
that he assumes to know and describe the conditions of a life for
which we have no experience or immediate data to make it intelligible.
It ill becomes the scientific man to put himself on the level of the
people that he affects to despise. But he does so when he asserts or
assumes that we must know the conditions of a transcendental life
before we can accept it as a fact. All our intelligible knowledge is
represented by some form of sensory, or at least terrestrial experience.
We cannot suppose any sensory phenomena in a discarnate soul with
its loss of the very conditions of such, though, if we knew more
than we do, we might find other means of getting impressions. But
this assumption is too precarious to build an hypothesis upon it.
Whatever the experiences of a discarnate soul, supposing it a fact,
we have no means in the media of our scientific knowledge to
determine how we shall think them. It would require the presence
of a spiritual body even to suggest anything analogous to our
sensory impressions. But a surviving soul, assuming that it has any
consciousness of its past, could very well express or think in terms of
its terrestrial life, and it would have to do so if there were any possi-
bility of proving this survival. Hence the problem of personal
identity is the first question to be settled. What claims to be a
spirit must be made to prove its veracity by proving its personal
identity, and it can do this only by narrating its own terrestrial history

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 247

in a way to break the theory of telepathy. The facts also must be
verifiable But when it has established its veracity, it does not follow
that we are to accept any statements regarding transcendental
conditions of life as intelligible. Veracity and intelligibility are not
convertible. We may accept the veracity of a spirit after its identity
has been proved, and yet, without rejecting the truth of its statements
about spirit life, refuse to treat them as in any way important or
intelligible for us. Statements about a discarnate life are, of course,
worthless as evidence, because they are unverifiable, and even if
veracious are in addition not necessarily intelligible. It is thus strange
that men pretending to be scientific express their willingness to be con-
verted to spiritism, if we shall only tell them what the conditions
of life are in which a disembodied soul lives. They avow their
readiness to accept a doctrine on both unverifiable and unintelligible
evidence. I for one refuse to do this. I have no interest in the
conditions of such existence until I get there, unless they can be
made intelligible to me. I refuse to be drawn aside from the only
rational problem of science, which is personal identity, because within
that field the facts, being reminiscences, may be both verifiable and
intelligible. This limitation of the problem may make it insoluble
in the estimation of some people. So be it ; nevertheless, I admit no
problem as prior to that of identity, and I consider any demand for
unverifiable data and statements to involve a point of view worthy
only of those whose follies and fraud have made it all but impossible
to discuss a hereafter with patience or respect. The man who sets up
for a scientist should be the last to sympathise with such a position, and
should know both his method and the nature of the problem sufficiently
to escape illusions on so fundamental a question. Spiritualism ought
not to have a rival in the follies of the scientist who merely shelters
himself under the shadow of a great authority without intelligence, and
thus converts his own standard into credulity.

I have said nothing of suggestion as a difficulty in the case, because
I do not consider it a factor in the results worth examination. There
are a few isolated instances, to which I have called attention in my
notes and remarks as occasion required, in which suggestion is a con-
ceivable explanation. But these are too few to allow them any weight
in the whole, which the reader can easily see is unaffected by such
suspicions. Were any large number of specific incidents influenced
by my questions or statements the criticism might be considered. But
they are two infrequent to justify the waste of time and space in their
examination.

I could, however, construct an ingenious theory of suggestion out
of certain cases by taking them in connection with later messages air1
thus indicate a source of impeachment. Thus I might say that

248

J. H. Hyslojh PhD.

[part

remark made in the letter sent to Dr. Hodgson and read to the hand
on February 22nd, 1899 (p. 400), regarding my aunt Nannie's care of
us is the suggestion of that name and allusion to her keeping house for
father after my mother's death, made on June 1st, 1899 (p. 449). I
might also suppose that my request to finish the name begun with the
letter "F" on December 27th, 1898 (p. 338), was the source of the
" guess " at " FRAD " which I identified as Frank, but which could as
well be taken for a jump at Fred, which is actually given later where
Francis was mentioned, on May 29th, 1899 (p. 425). But when such
sporadic instances are examined they will appear as mere quibbling in
comparison with the vast majority of cases that are free from all
suspicion in this respect. Hence I shall not waste any time discussing
such ingenious speculations that are mere evasions of the pertinence
attaching to more evidential incidents.

The next objection that is to be met is one that is perhaps more
general than any other. It is the triviality of the incidents com-
municated and the poverty of the life, or arrested development, which
they are supposed to indicate. The reply to this charge, however, is
sufficiently clear, both in my refusal to recognise the assumption that
the facts are any indication of the condition of the soul, and in my
remarks on the Experiments in the Identification of Personality (pp.
537-623). We saw in these experiments that living, and presumably
rational men choose the most trivial incidents for the purpose of
identification, and that we are equally bound to reflect on their sanity,
or express repugnance to their conditions of life, when we are tempted
to sneer at the occupations and mental status of spirits. No idea of the
persons can be formed in those experiments from the character of their
messages. They naturally selected the incidents which association
recalled for establishing identity, and these were necessarily trivial.
But what has been said of the problem of psychical research, and of
the conditions of communication in any case ought to show that we
have no right to judge of the phenomena by any other standard than
that of personal identity, no matter what theory we have to account
for them. If the mental conditions necessary for communication are
possibly abnormal, as might be most natural, though this is not
apparent in the case of Imperator and Rector, for reasons of experience
presumably, there would be an additional reason for the triviality of
the messages and the confusion which the unscientific mind misjudges.
But whether such conditions exist or not, the only incidents that
should influence any man who can lay the slightest claim to a scien-
tific comprehension of the problem will be those which cannot be
duplicated in any living consciousness, or that at least are not common
experiences. Trivial facts are the only thing that will satisfy these
conditions.

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 249

It would be a far more pertinent query to ask why telepathy should
thus limit itself to trivial incidents than to raise the question regarding
spirits. The presumably easy access of this power to the sitter's and
others' memories, the supposed intelligence of the process in connection
with its adjunct, secondary personality, and discrimination between
the relevant and irrelevant matter, and the absence of all reason to
suppose that telepathy must duplicate the mental conditions apparent
on the " other side " for communicating, ought to qualify it for the
reproduction of the important matter that we should most naturally
expect of normal personality. A process presumably so intelligent
ought to produce what is wanted and not to betray the limitations so
apparent in the results.

I must summarise several important facts that may be considered
as a reply to the accusation of triviality in the messages. They are
partly a denial and partly a justification of the triviality. I state
them briefly. (1) The facts are not all trivial. Many of them are
quite worthy of the best intelligence, even when not attempting to
establish personal identity. (Cf. incidents of conversations on spirit
return, pp. 30-34, religious remarks, pp. 401, 456, and hymn incident,
p. 389.) (2) Many of the trivial incidents were in response to my
own questions and involved the satisfaction of my own demands. The
irrationality must be on my part. (3) Many of those that were
spontaneously trivial follow upon an explanation to the communicator
of what he is to do, and he is told to remind me of little things in his
life. (4) The probable abnormal condition of the communicator's
mind in the act of communicating, and the difficulties of the act.

The last consideration is a most important one and the evidences
that it is a fact must be enumerated. (1) That there must be
difficulties in the way of communicating is an a priori necessity in the
case whether we choose to admit the existence of spirits or not. Any
world of energy transcending sense must yield a difficulty in connecting
it with sensory experience, no matter what we conceive that world to
be. (2) The alternation of communicators which ought not to occur on
the telepathic theory. (3) The character of the communications at
the point of change from one communicator to another. (4) The
confused and fragmentary character of many of the messages. (5)
The absolute failure and inability of some communicators to com-
municate although they should be as naturally expected as those who
do appear. (6) The statements of the communicators themselves (Cf.
pp. 643-645, 428, 449) both in regard to their confused state of mind
when communicating and their clearer consciousness when not com-
municating. (7) The analogies of hypnosis and secondary personality,
in respect both of the contents of the messages and the appearance of
a disturbed memory.

Digitized by Google

250

J. K Hyslop, PLD.

[part

In reference to the matter of triviality the student will appreciate
the rationality of it much better if he will consult those passages and
incidental remarks of the chief communicator which reflect his
conscious understanding of my purpose. This only gradually dawned
upon him and as it was explained to him, so to speak, first on the
" other side " apparently, and then by Dr. Hodgson in the first of his
sittings on my behalf. As a good illustration of the appreciation
shown in attempting to satisfy my demands compare the answer to my
request on June 6th (p. 470, Cf. also pp. 434, 460). One special state-
ment is worth quoting, as it intelligently recognises in a spontaneous
way both my object and the triviality of the fact mentioned,
thus anticipating and answering the very objection under consideration.
On June 8th (p. 490) my father, referring to my stepmother, asked
me : " Will you ask her about the paper knife, not because I care for
so trifling a thing, only as a test for you."

It would appear, therefore, that I entertain no objections to the
spiritistic interpretation of the case. While this is true in regard to
my own sittings ; while I should be inclined to treat them as conclu-
sive, if I had not studied the subject in its wider phases and if I could
regard the phenomena as quite as well isolated as any physical
phenomena obtained under similar conditions of exclusion, yet I shall
not refuse to admit the existence of problems which require some
suspense of judgment regarding spiritism, strong as it may seem to be
on the surface of such facts as are here recorded. But nevertheless
the fact is that I have to go wholly outside of my own sittings and
record for difficulties and objections of any sort, and these are of
various degrees of weight, some of them being easily answered, as I
think, and some of them too well supported by the facts of secondary
personality to be dismissed without careful consideration, even if we do
not regard them as really applicable to the Piper case.

Now as my own spiritistic preferences were not determined by my
experiments alone and by the exclusion of other phenomena of like
import, on the surface at least, but were simply the " straw that broke
the camel's back " after studying Dr. Hodgson's Report, which brought
the issue very sharply to view and which left me without any satisfac-
tory reply to his position ; as it was the total record of the Society's
work, supplemented by my experiments, that disturbed my allegiance
to materialism ; so it is the whole field of alleged spiritistic phenomena,
and especially the whole of the Piper case as previously published, that
I felt obliged to reckon with before being too sure of the conclusion
which is so strongly supported by my own sittings. Consequently, as I
understand the problem, there are two general sources of difficulty
and objection which are both respectable and deserving of careful

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 251

consideration. They are, first, the earlier reports on the Piper
phenomena, and, second, the character of certain alleged spiritistic
phenomena which suggest very large capacities for secondary person-
ality, to say nothing of a large field of genuinely supernormal facts
which cannot be rightly termed spiritistic for the lack of traces in them
of evidence for personal identity.

Taking the Phinuit regime in the Piper case we have certain
phenomena which suggest caution in the acceptance of the spiritistic
theory, since they indicated the identity of living persons rather than that
of the deceased. They are those experiments in which Phinuit would
undertake to furnish the names and incidents in the lives of persons
intimately connected with some old rag or trinket of whose ownership
and history the sitter might be entirely ignorant. Phinuit also did not
seem to care whether the person represented in the ownership of such
articles was living or dead. (Cf. Proceedings, Vol. VI., pp. 458, 525,
535-6, 537 and 584 ; Vol. VIII., pp. 20-27, 101-3, 106, 109, 115,
129, 140-1, 145, 154-5, 160-6.) There is some system in obtaining
communications with your friends, and, through them, in calling up a
relative, since we can imagine some form of telepathic influence on a
spirit to attract it, though this conception is tenuous enough to frighten
us in applying our standards of belief. If we could suppose the possi-
bility of our friends being about us in a world which simply prevents
their communicating with us except under unusual and abnormal con-
ditions we can conceive why we establish rapport with them by going
to a medium. This supposition, however, is the question at issue, or if
not the question at issue, is still as precarious as any we can imagine.
But when it comes to tapping any past consciousness that you please
and about which you know nothing, simply by putting some old rag in
the hand of a medium, the thing becomes so incomprehensible, if not
preposterous, at least to me, as to stagger anytliing but credulity. I
do not dispute the possibility of explaining such phenomena on the
spiritistic hypothesis, if that is once secured, as we are too ignorant of
the laws of any supposed transcendental world to say what discarnate
spirits can or cannot do, if it is once granted that they exist. But the
problem is not one of explanation merely. It is also one of evidence,
and the existence of spirits must be proved before utilising them for pur-
poses of explanation, and as the phenomena so often indicate absolutely
no traces of deceased personal identity we find them to be difficulties in
the way of accepting spiritism. But we do not dispose of the marvellous
nature of the thing by refusing to recognise it as spiritistic. It is even
as incomprehensible on any other view. It would not help matters to
call such performances clairvoyance with the intention of excluding
spirits from account — for that alleged process, if true, is far mor^
unintelligible than the assumed agency of spirits. Spirits at least hf*

Digitized by Google

252

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

this advantage, that they represent a consciousness with some known
powers conceivably enlarged in a transcendental world, where possibly
telepathy, a sporadic fact with the living, might be the normal mode
of communication and might immensely extend their resources for the
acquisition of knowledge, especially when we look at the case from the
idealist's doctrine of space. But clairvoyance and telepathy as ascribed
to incarnate minds, are absolutely unknown in their mode of action,
and are little more than names for facts which require a cause
and which cannot be explained by any agency that science ordinarily
recognises. By some extraordinary hypothesis, for which there is some
evidence, but not enough to dogmatise upon, or upon which to ask the
sympathy of scientific minds not thoroughly acquainted with the whole
problem, I admit that we could give a spiritistic explanation to such
phenomena as I have alluded to, and this might be done as Hartmann
actually does it, by a sort of monistic pantheism which does not require
us to take space into account in tapping the infinite. I have already
said that I do not regard the pantheistic view as in any respect incon-
sistent with spiritism in its fundamental postulate, namely, that the
stream of consciousness which passes for a person in this life and which
must be as much an emanation of the absolute now as after death, may
still survive and have its memory as at present. Or telepathy once
granted for any world whatsoever, it might also be qualified to secure the
right person connected with the trinket in any number of supposable
ways, even on the assumption that as persons we are thoroughly indivi-
duated, as the atomic theory would require. But in the absence of any
knowledge that spirits exist at all, the supposition of finding any one
we please in this easy manner is so extraordinary that we should
naturally ask whether the attitude of agnosticism is not safer than
spiritism. I confess that any attempt to explain such phenomena
without spiritism only makes matters worse Hence I can but recog-
nise agnosticism, which is simply the attitude of caution and insistence
on the most rigid canons of evidence, as the only rational alternative to
spiritism, if we are to give such phenomena any importance at all.

But it is right here that a very significant objection can be raised
against the recognition of these phenomena as indicative of anything
in the supernormal field. The sceptic may refuse to admit that they
are sufficient in quantity and quality to invite any other explanation
than chance and guessing. Some of the real or apparent successes in
the recorded experiments of the kind mentioned might be less sugges-
tive after these suppositions were applied to them, so that we may not
resort to the supernormal in any shape. But this is to cut them off
completely from use as objections to spiritism in the case of the Piper
record where chance and guessing are pre-empted at the outset. The
spiritistic theory in this instance will become overwhelming the

xli ] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 253

moment that we repudiate the value and significance of the coin-
cidences in the experiments under consideration as furnishing
objections. I am not able, however, to agree in discarding their
value. Some of the incidents should have to be scrutinised with
chance and guessing in view, and also perhaps illusions of identity on
the part of the person who recognised them. They were, however, not
only careful experiments, but contain, when taken as a whole, and
more especially in certain important instances, coincidences with specific
contents in too many cases to dismiss them as accidents. There
are in them clear instances of supernormally acquired knowledge,
and so must be retained either to create difficulties for spiritism
or to indicate the existence of certain problems in it which we
should like to see solved before committing ourselves unreservedly to
it. The sceptic, however, will remove the objection to spiritism
founded upon them, if he discredits their supernormal value. On the
other hand, I see no hope of getting any leverage with which to
begin their explanation until the existence of discarnate souls is
admitted, though the facts indicating something supernormal are no
evidence of the spiritistic theory. Hence it will be apparent why I
<Io not intend to treat the phenomena as in any way insuperably
opposed to the belief in spirits. They are difficulties in the theory, not
against it.

But there is one class of phenomena in these experiments referred
to as suggesting difficulties that perhaps raise the strongest objection
which we have to meet. They are the instances in which Phinuit
apparently, not certainly, read the minds of certain persons at a
distance, merely by having a trinket of some sort in Mrs. Piper's hand
and that belonged to the person whose mind was supposedly read.
(Proceedings, Vol. VIII., pp. 139-159 ; see also references above, p. 126.)
This was done in some cases in which the medium had no knowledge
of the owner of the article, nor did the sitter, Dr. Hodgson. There is
no pretence of spirit communication in the contents of the messages,
as they actually represent the present or past consciousness of living
persons, and show no traces of any other personal identity. The facts
represented largely physical actions which the person from whom they
were presumably obtained were performing at the time or had
performed shortly before. Now there is no satisfactory evidence in
such phenomena of the existence of spirits. If you have once proved
their existence you are justified in admitting them as the possible,
perhaps the most probable, explanation of such facts, but the incidents
are no evidence of that hypothesis in so far as it is affected or determined
by the problem of personal identity, and it is this last issue that I
maintain must be satisfied first. Consequently, without prior proof o*
identity we must, at least, feel charitable for telepathy, or sometlr

254

J. H. Hysk>py Ph.D.

[part

like it, and this on a vast scale. Now just in proportion as we feel
obliged to accept telepathy in these and other coincidences transcending
time and space limitations in the mind of the sitter, apparently hunting
up some unknown person from whom to extract the information, to the
same extent we must admit the possibility that telepathy might account
for the reproduction of personal identity in the facts pertaining to
those who have died. This has always been the reasoning that held me
to scepticism regarding the spirit theory, and I know that Dr. Hodgson
was restrained by the same fact from his conclusions for a long time.
I suspect too that it was this circumstance which induced his effort to
see whether the facts made it more probable that Phinuit was a
discarnate spirit than that he should be merely the secondary
personality of Mrs. Piper, representing her telepathic and clairvoyant
powers. But legitimate as this may be, we cannot escape the duty to
make the spiritistic theory good against real or apparent objections of
this sort.

But I do not regard the difficulty here raised as at all an insuper-
able one. I think it possible to explain the phenomena on the
spiritistic theory, if once assumed, though the evidence for it has to be
very different. That evidence is much stronger to-day than it was
when the first two reports were published on the Piper case, and adds
its weight to the argument for a spiritistic interpretation of the
phenomena under consideration. But independently of this later
evidence there are two resources for limiting the importance of the
objection advanced. There is first the elastic and indefinite meaning
of the terms clairvoyance and telepathy. I have already shown that
they are mere names for an unknown cause. They are convenient
weapons for scepticism, and serve a most useful purpose in keeping
the standard of evidence as high as possible, but they are not in
truth explanations of any sort. We get into the habit of assuming
a priori that they mean necessarily processes between liviug minds on
the ground that the evidence does not prove spirits, and we forget
wholly that we are so ignorant of the real modus operandi in the case
that it does not occur to us that possibly the agency intermediating
the whole effect may be spirits. I do not advance this supposition as
probable, and if I thought the mere suggestion of it was calculated to
diminish the stringency of the canons of evidence I should be sorry
to have mentioned it. But it is legitimate to remark the limitations
of the appeal to telepathy, which rather creates than solves problems.
The second reply is based upon the possible spiritistic nature of
Phinuit. If we shout telepathy we may well question the spirit reality
of Phinuit, but we may in this way shut our eyes to facts which
telepathy cannot explain, but which spiritism may cover and with
them the other incidents in question. We may therefore turn the

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena, 255

problem completely around and ask whether the facts on the whole do
not make it more probable than not that Phinuit was a discarnate
spirit, and by this circumstance unravel the mystery about his per-
formances. This hypothesis must not be hastily made, nor the
canon of evidence be parted from in the attempt, but it is legitimate
as a possible alternative to the explicable meaning of telepathy and
clairvoyance when these are nothing more than appeals to an infinite
of which we know nothing. Now I must say that, taking the whole
Phinuit performances under careful scrutiny, the spiritistic theory to
account for him is a perfectly rational one. I do not say that it is
proved or even the most probable one, but that it is a rational
possibility, and especially in the light of what the Piper phenomena
have finally exhibited. In spite of his shortcomings and the total
failure to establish his personal identity, the independence of his
intelligence, the consistency of his claim that he was a spirit and
obtained all his information from spirits, the mention of correct French
names, which Mrs. Piper could hardly have ever heard, except on the
assumption of fraud, and more especially the mass of evidence of
identity of other persons than himself, and all the difficulties of
telepathic hypothesis which I have mentioned as inherent in it — ail
these are strongly suggestive that he was what he claimed to be, and
this once granted, the phenomena which seem to give difficulty become
either explicable on the spirit theory, or a subordinate problem under
it. To say the least, this is a possible alternative, rendered somewhat
strong by the array of facts just mentioned, and as long as this is the
case we are not forced to accept telepathy either as an explanation of
the phenomena or as an unequivocal objection to spiritism. Neverthe-
less, though I regard the difficulty as one that is not against spiritism,
but in it, I consider it an obligation to be extremely cautious in
preferring the spiritistic theory against the possible difficulties,
profound or superficial, as the case may be, that may be raised by the
prudent sceptic on the ground of achievements that are not evidence of
personal identity in any discarnate spirit, but that are so apparently
amenable to the extended telepathy which is here assumed to be the
rival of spiritism. But whatever difficulties the phenomena considered
may have suggested in the old Phinuit regime, when his identity could
not be established, and when the identity of others was less clear than
in the later regime, they are less serious in the present conditions of
the case, though we know nothing about the identity of Imperator and
Rector. The dramatic play of personality which in no case can be
explained by telepathy, and the prevention of interference and
confusion from various communicators, with greater accompanying
clearness in the messages and their illustration of personal identity,
are so suggestive of spiritism as to diminish the original importan

256

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

of the various difficulties in the Phinuit regime and to give the
spiritistic theory the preference.

One of the circumstances which at least seem to favor telepathy in
the estimation of some people, or to suggest a suspicion in its favor, is
the fact that it is almost uniformly your friends who appear as the
communicators in these experiments, and hence represent what is most
likely in the sitter's memory. Were the sitters called upon to identify
persons of whose lives they knew nothing, and were they as successful
in this as in those they do identify, the telepathic theory would have
such an independence of the sitter's memory that it would make the
alternative theory more plausible. But the general correlation between
the communicator and the memory of the sitter is a suspicious fact in
some minds, inasmuch as it makes the majority of the incidents on
which the argument rests amenable to telepathy, at least as the safest
precaution against hasty conclusions. But I regard the objection as
sufficiently refuted by two facts — first, that such unknown persons have
often communicated incidents which satisfy the criterion of personal
identity, at least to the extent necessary to meet the difficulty con-
sidered (Proceedings, Vol. XIII., pp. 372-383), and, second, that
incidents are often given which are unknown to the sitter, and which
would have to be acquired, on the telepathic theory, in the same way
as when the communicator is unknown to the sitter, namely, by a selec-
tion from the memory of some living person unknown to the medium
or unknown to the sitter. But it is a very singular and inconceivable
power to give it two such infinite capacities, one to get the right
incident independently of the sitter's memory, and the other both the
right person deceased and the right fact to represent his identity, both
unknown to the sitter, to say nothing of the facts stated that evidently
belong to no living person at all, and have yet their probabilities without
verification, both intrinsically and on the veracity of the communica-
tions generally. The dramatic play of personality would be against the
marvellous selective power of telepathy, or create a suspicion against it
at least, even if all the facts belonged to the subliminal of the sitter.

I am not able to admit that the fact of communications almost
exclusively from friends specially favours telepathy. We know too
little of the laws and conditions of nature and of telepathy to assume
any such theory about this matter. There is one thing, however, that
we do know from experience with the Piper phenomena, and this is
that the task of identifying any stranger to the sitter would be an
infinitely more difficult one than with the known communicators when
we have to contend with so much scepticism in regard to those that
we do identify as our friends. I doubt whether I could be induced
to prefer the spiritistic theory of any verifiable facts in the life of a
.stranger whose errors were greater than his successes in communication.

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 257

The fragmentary nature of the messages, the capricious choice
of incidents from the standpoint of the sitter, the probability that we
could not even find the persons living who could verify the incidents
when given, and the possibility that there are influences that render it
more difficult for strangers to communicate rather make it fortunate
for scientific results that we do not have such data to deal with in any
quantity, no matter what theory we adopt in the case. Now, if we
examine the facts in the record we shall find interesting corroboration
of what I have said regarding the possible influences in favour of com-
munications from friends. If the reader will study carefully the
sittings of Dr. Hodgson held for me he will observe a most interesting
psychological fact that tells against telepathy and indicates a possible
explanation of the natural selection of friends in communications. In
these sittings my father, who is the communicator, appears to get
tired, so to speak, of communicating, and asks to be excused, a thing
that never occurred in my sittings except to rest a few minutes, as it
were. In my last sitting even this did not occur. I held the attention
by relaxing the scientific rigidity of silence, and by the demand that he
should tell his own story, and employed his interest and attention
so strongly that he evidently felt no discomfort or inconvenience
under the " conditions." Here we have the natural effect of intense
interest and attention to render the communication more sustained
and clear, a perfectly natural phenomenon, and perhaps also the personal
interest of the communicator in the sitter as the most important
influence affecting the process. But how could this interest be
maintained in a stranger] We know in actual life it is far more
difficult to control the interest of strangers in conversation with us
than that of friends. This is especially true if the stranger is asked
to do something important in a few minutes or seconds to establish his
identity ! Just try this once. It is hard enough to sit down and
select incidents rationally or irrationally with reference to secure identi-
fication, as my experiments on this matter showed, even when we have
friends to deal with, and a stranger has a practically impossible task
to perform, as the necessary point de rephre for memory and association
to work upon is lacking in his case, and in addition the influence of
intense interest and attention to accomplish the desired result, as is
so well illustrated in the comparison of Dr. Hodgson's sittings with
mine generally, and my last with the others, as well as with his.
Moreover, a single remark also regarding telepathy will suffice to
dismiss the distinction that we may be tempted to draw between
friends and strangers. If ,we are to assume the extension of telepathy
in any case we have no rational reason for using the fact that friends
are usually the communicators in favor of telepathy, because living
strangers to both medium and sitter ought to offer no special difficulties

258

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

on the telepathic theory to the reproduction of memories of these
strangers, so that the present discrimination between friends and
strangers cannot be based on the greater facility of securing messages
in one case than the other, but on the more naturally spiritistic nature
of the phenomena. Nor will it help to say that the unwillingness to
communicate with Dr. Hodgson is an indication of the fact that the
messages were obtained telepathically from me in New York, and were
thus more difficult and exhausting to secure, as this feature did not
show itself in my sittings where many messages had to be obtained
from other memories, on that supposition, than my own (Cf. p. 132).
Moreover, the communications from my cousin Robert McClellan,
which could have been very numerous if drawn from my own memory,
were conceived from the standpoint of his own memory and attempt to
identify himself to his wife. Besides it would have been more difficult
for him even in life to remember much about me than for me to recall
incidents in connection with him, as he was both much older than I
am and we had too little to do with each other to fix many things
in his recollection distinctly in relation to me. I have a great many
recollections of him or in relation to him that he would not associate
with me. The reason for this is connected with his father, my uncle
James McClellan, on whose place my cousin lived after his fathers
death. I always delighted as a boy to visit the place for its proximity
to the railway, where I could constantly see the trains passing. I had
seldom seen him also, for the last twenty years, and little occurred
on such occasions that could be remembered distinctly, as they were
usually a night's social ~visit. Only the political speech to which
T alluded (p. 429) was either likely to be recalled in relation to
me or would have had any value as evidence for personal identity
from my point of view, though the facts in my memory, sub-
liminal or otherwise, are numerous enough for telepathy to have
drawn more exhaustively upon them than it did. Hence it is signifi-
cant that, in spite of his relation to me, the communications from him
are conceived in strict accordance with what we should naturally
expect in the ordinary laws of memory, and as if from a stranger
whose chief interest was in his more immediate relatives and recollec-
tions. Take, for instance, his reference to my brother Robert, which
shows a solicitude in him that was natural, but which I did not know
was anything special until I learned in the West that he had taken
particular interest in this brother for reasons that I cannot publish.
Hence I refuse to accept the assumption that communications from
friends are more favorable to telepathy .than to spiritism. The
contrary may well be the case.

There is another difficulty which presents itself to nearly every
student of these phenomena. It is the amazingly incomprehensible

Digitized by

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 259

conditions of existence and employment that are represented in some of
the communications. This difficulty does not appear in my own
record, and hence were I dealing with that alone I should not have to
consider any such objections. There is not a trace in my sittings
of anything indicating the conditions of existence beyond the grave.
I have to look elsewhere in the case as a whole to encounter
difficulties of this sort. For instance, in one record we are told that
the soul has an " astral facsimile of the material body." (Proceedings,
Vol. Xin., p. 301.) I have commented on this previously (p.
225). Frequent allusions are made to breathing and functions that
are natural only in the present existence, according to our physiological
suppositions ; calling for old playthings; statement that a child is just
beginning its letters, etc. Such things are not general, but they are
frequent enough to make one with ordinary sense pause and ask
whether they may not balance against spiritism and in favor of tele-
pathy and secondary personality, and hence represent impossible facts
as judged by the usual and natural assumptions of what consciousness
must be when separated from a material organism, especially when our
thinking is dominated by Cartesian conceptions of the soul.

I can say in reply, however, as I have said above, that there is
nothing intrinsically impossible in the " astral facsimile " theory, how-
ever amusing, as it certainly is to me with my habits of thought.
Even physiological science, where it has admitted a soul at all, has
occasionally tolerated the idea that it might be of the shape of the
body, and this without reference to the veridical character of appari-
tions. But there is also a way to reconcile both the Cartesian and
the physiological conceptions. We may suppose that the "astral
facsimile " is an etherial body and the soul may still be a point of force
inhabiting the etherial body, as consciousness now inhabits the mate-
rial organism. This is the way that the communications most natur-
ally represent it, or require us to conceive it. Dr. Hodgson has stated
this matter very clearly in his report (Proceedings, Vol. XIII., p.
400). Of course I do not urge this view of it as true or proved, but as
so possible from the limits of our knowledge regarding any transcen-
dental world beyond sense perception (instance X-rays), that it cannot
be treated as an objection, but only as a problem within the spiritistic
theory.

But it is not so easy to remove our natural repugnance to the other
allegations or implications about the conditions of existence in another
life Laving in houses, listening to lectures, are rather funny repro-
ductions of a material existence, and still funnier for beings that ought to
be nothing more than points of force according to Descartes and
Roscovich ! In some instances the statements may be treated as auto-
matisms and hence as not indicating transcendental conditions of life 9

260

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

all, as in the case of a communicator calling for his hat (p. 307), or as
distorted messages owing to the influence of the " machine " and its
organic habits upon the form of the communication. Allusions to
breathing and similar functions may also be treated as automatisms, or
as the nearest description that a spirit could give of the state of con-
sciousness which accompanies the difficulties of communicating. From
what I have already said about the conditions of such an existence
it is apparent that I do not consider myself bound to interpret them in
the terms of our most natural understanding, but as the best attempts
possible to express new experiences in terms intelligible to us. That is
the communicator must put new wine into old bottles. - Interesting
evidence of this is the language used in describing the process of com-
municating. It is sometimes called "speaking," and sometimes
" thinking," as if recognising in the latter case that it was telepathic in
nature, that is, telepathy between the discarnate spirit and Mrs. Piper's
subliminal. Imagine a person who never had the sense of touch and
only the sense of sight communicating with another who never had the
sense of sight but only that of touch, and we have some analogy with the
situation between incarnate and discarnate consciousness, the difference
being that in the case of supposed spirits there is a memory connection
with the terrestrial world which makes some communications intelligible.
Independently of this, however, the communications would be either
impossible or worthless for establishing personal identity. The only
common aspect of consciousness without this memory connection would
be the emotional characteristic, and that is an impossible basis for
establishing any intelligible idea of the real conditions that the
language appears to describe. On this ground and analogy, therefore,
I refuse to interpret all such statements in terms of our ordinary
experience where they are so closely associated with sensory ideas. We
may leave them as unknown quantities. Even if we could not suggest
a method of explaining them away, they are not frequent enough to
require a positive explanation in the absence of data to interpret
them, while the predominant evidence which falls into line with our
conception of personal identity, sufficiently allows us to draw a
conclusion regarding the possibility of survival, and we suspend judg-
ment on the unverified and unverifiable allegations which do not
contradict the evidence, but which merely offend our a priori
assumptions.

But there is a reply to the objection under consideration that ia
still more effective, and that brings the statements that offend us so
much into the range of our intelligence without admitting sensory con-
ceptions into the account. I shall appeal to the whole philosophy of
idealism in support of the possibility that I shall present. If that
system has any foundation at all, its position assigns so much even in

Digitized by

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 2§1

material existence to the action of consciousness that it ought to be
easily adjusted to the spiritistic theory. Ever since Kant the watch-
word of that philosophy has been that we make our world. Such
statements offend common sense as much as these puzzling allegations
from a trancendental world annoy the common man and the
philosopher alike. But however much we may dissent from it and
however much the language is calculated to create misunderstanding in
terms of empirical and sensory experience, it nevertheless contains the
important truth (1) that sensations are not representive of the world
that elicits them ; (2) that all the disconnected elements of experience in
time and space are organised into the unity of scientific and other
knowledge by the subject's own action ; and (3) that the spontaneous
idealisation or creation of many objects of consciousness, not given in
experience at all, represents some constructive and non-sensory menta-
tion even in a material existence. Of course in our present conditions
we are always brought up to face the non-ego when the problem of
adjustment to an external world is involved. The nature of the
case makes it constantly imperative to take our nov <rra> in the
objective world and not to disregard it, either in thought or action.
We can disregard it, however, in our dreams, and in those moods and
occupations which employ us with the construction of our ideals. Now
imagine the material world removed from its relation to consciousness
and to the needs of life, and we have a condition in which Kant's
dictum about the spontaneous action of the understanding would
represent that function as having free play. Suppose then the
two following conditions fulfilled in a transcendental world and then
interpret the statements which give difficulty in their light to see how
the matter may stand. (1) Imagine a rationalised dream life, or life
of spontaneous idealisation and creation of ideas (poetry is this), and
(2) their communication by persons to each other through telepathy,
and we shall have a representation, in two actual facts of our know-
ledge, of what is possible in the transcendental world. We carry on
such acts of the understanding under limitations even now, and we
have also proved telepathy as an occasional phenomenon in a material
existence, though not employing any material conditions within our
knowledge for its effectuation. Taking then these two suppositions
which represent known laws of mental action and adding to them that
of personal identity on the evidence of such records as this,
and we have, as strictly within the lines of scientific method,
the rationality of the spiritistic theory. In addition we remove
absolutely all the offensiveness of statements about occupations and
actions in a transcendental world, as they have to be expressed to us in
our language adapted to sensory experience and not qualified to sugges
the real difference between the pure products of the understand;

262

J. H. HysUrp, PLD.

[part

even though they are based upon antecedent experience, and the
material objects which are usually denoted for us in our ordinary
intercourse, where we cannot lose sight of the external world on any
theory. I shall not develop this thought at length, but leave it to the
reader, as my object is accomplished when I have shown the way
even to make the apparently preposterous statements of discarnate
spirits intelligible to terrestrial reason. Rightly applied, this
hypothesis will give unity to more of the data of psychical research
than appears at a glance. I shall not maintain that my hypothesis
is true or proved, as I am as far from entertaining it as more than a
possibility. It contradicts no known human experience or theory, but
rather falls into line with much of our philosophy and common
experience divested of its association with sense, and consequently
ought to represent a fair reproduction of a spiritual world for any of
those who have been willing to believe and describe it without
evidence. To those who will not accept such a world without evidence,
and I class myself among this latter number, the hypothesis violates
no known fact of human experience, but rather depends upon it and
only adds to it the conclusion that follows from the evidence of
personal identity. In this it satisfies the canons of scientific method,
as telepathy cannot do.

We may also ask, as a further objection, who Imperator and
Rector are. Here we have two alleged spirits whose identity is
absolutely concealed from us and apparently with "malice prepense.'1
Phinuit attempted to tell us who he was and failed to identify himself.
Imperator and Rector do not even try as yet to satisfy our curiosity
on this point. Now are we not obliged to determine whether they are
spirits or not before accepting the verdically spiritual character of the
personalities that seem to be verifiable ? May we not, in the absence
of evidence for their identity, assume that they are secondary
personalities of Mrs. Piper's organism and representative of super-
normal conditions which qualify her for telepathic acquisition of the
data that simulate the personal identity of others \

Now it should be said in regard to this objection that it can be
made from two points of view. The first will be from a thorough study
of their performances, and the second that of secondary personality in
others and without any knowledge of the Piper phenomena. This
second point of view does not need any notice, as it is not worth any-
thing until the man who is tempted with it acquaints himself with the
case at hand. The first is more important. But if any man delibe-
rately adopts that view as assured after studying the case at first
hand, I do not see that I can dislodge him. As for myself I cannot
study the dramatic play of personality, to say nothing of its complication

Digitized by Google

XLi.] Observation* of Certain Trance Phenomena. 263

with telepathy, without appreciating the naturalness and the rational
strength of the spiritistic theory more than I can the emphasis
of analogies which are too general to affect anything except the
superficial features of an argument. In addition to the wonderful
dramatic play of personality that I have so elaborately discussed-,
just think of the memory that must be involved in conducting the
right adjustment and connections of incidents, ideas, and advice
necessary to give the psychological complexity and the unity of the
phenomena that so successfully represent spirit existence, while
hundreds of sitters follow each other from day to day in miscellaneous
confusion. If any man wishes to combine such a number of " miracles "
in one act or brain, namely, such elastic range of secondary personality
as appears in these trance intermediaries and others like G. P. and
Phinuit, all with character as distinct as we ever knew it in life and
capable of playing a real part wholly unlike secondary personality as
we know it ordinarily, and then add to this an omniscient telepathy —
if any man does this, I can only say that I do not follow him into the
a priori construction of such an hypothesis. He must give a detailed
analysis of cases that are similar and yet that do not have any
spiritistic content. This may be possible, but I suspend judgment
until it is effected. The supposition appears strong as any appeal to
the infinite must appear strong for the lack of any assignable limits to
such powers. But these are not the customary modes of scientific
explanation, which has a preference for the finite.

I may add, however, in further reply to this objection that, as I
conceive the problem, I am not required to begin any theory with an
explanation of who Imperator or Rector are. That problem I have
already defined as, first, that of personal identity, but this does not
obligate my proving the identity of everybody that comes along. If
Imperator and Rector volunteered any evidence of their identity, it
would be my duty to examine and weigh it. But unless they do
volunteer it I am entitled, nay, bound to suspend judgment on that
point, and be content with the supposition of secondary personality.
It is even possible that it is exceedingly wise on their part, if they are
actually discarnate spirits, not to make any claims as to who they are.
My sittings show that it is a very precarious business to identify
anybody that has been dead twenty-five or fifty years. Compare the
case of John McClellan (p. Ill), and Note 94 (p. 535). The memories
of even one's children may not suffice to satisfy the maw of science if
a parent or relative has passed long before. (Cf. Footnote p. 1 1 1.) If
Imperator and Rector should happen to belong to a past generation, the
concealment of their identity would not only be a wise procedure until
the identity of some one else was established, but it might also entitle
them to the credit of fully realising the scientific problem that presen*

264

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[PART

itself to us. I have no positive reason to suppose that this possibility
of their existence in some past generation is true, or even plausible.
But there is nothing opposed to it in the nature of the case.
Nevertheless I concede that as long as their identity is not
given we must either assume that they are secondary personalities
of Mrs. Piper or conduct the argument for the identity of others
on a scale commensurate with the gravity of the problem. If the
evidence for the identity of alleged communicators, beside Im-
perator and Rector, becomes so overwhelming as it appears generally
in cases which we are capable of verifying, and if it transcends all
normal expectations of the human brain and routs the theory of
telepathy, so that spiritism is the preferable hypothesis, we may
accept the facts as giving the retroactive light to suppose that
Imperator and Rector are what they claim to be. But this does not
commit us to their personal identity in any case, even if they should
reveal it. They might be utterly unable to satisfy the criterion of
scientific method in attempting the task, though any statement on
their part would put the burden of rejecting the case upon us. We
might believe them if desired, but we are not obliged to do so. I
should have the right certainly to exact of them sufficient verifiable
evidence for their identity before accepting their statements, whether
that evidence be facts in their lives on earth or their performances and
character as " Controls " in these experiments inducing confidence in
their veracity. Hence I am willing, or may even think it necessary,
to suspend judgment on this point altogether, even after accepting the
fact that they are possibly or probably spirits on the ground of the
evidence that presumably enforces the spiritistic theory in regard to
communicators who can and do give verifiable facts. But we can
never forget that Imperator and Rector as personalities follow George
Pelham in the history of the Piper case as a personality. He it was
that could at once do something to establish his identity and. control
communications. They do not appear as entire mysteries in the wake
of Phinuit, but are preceded by a verifiable personality who was
instrumental in producing them, and who actually counsels Dr.
Hodgson to accept their directions in the management of the ex-
periments. This fact with the whole testimony of their work is
a powerful argument for their reality. But I shall not assume it in
this discussion, and feel less obliged to do so for the reason that it
does not make any difference where the proMem of personal identity
begins. We have in any case to face the fact of secondary personality
and we may assume as many as we please of them as intermediaries, if
only the evidence unmistakably shows such limitations in the powers
of these personalities as will not consist with anything except the
spirit hypothesis.

Digitized by Google

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 265

I should also treat their various statements about transcendental
conditions and their professions of superior knowledge in the same
way. These are their individual opinions and must be subject to the
same rules of evidence that regulate the acceptance of any opinions.
Complete liberty of judgment must be accorded us on this point to
apply as rigid criteria as scientific method may demand, even when we
conceive their opinions as either possible or probable. Their statements
are not to be supposed false because we refuse to accept them as true on
authority. They may be the personal opinions of the subjects who state
them and cannot be put on the same plane as the verifiable facts of a
terrestrial world. They may even be facts instead of opinions, but
not being verifiable by us beyond the range of such incidents as are
represented in their achievements in terrestrial conditions (diagnosis
of disease, supernormal perception of character, etc.), we are entitled
to distinguish between what are opinions and what we know to be
facts verifiable independently of their testimony. This fact relieves us
from all scientific use of data in the record which do not first prove
identity, whatever we choose to regard as possible or probable in the
personality of these intermediaries. If they could or did furnish
Hatisfactory evidence of their identity, the case against secondary
j)ersonality and its combination with telepathy would be that much
stronger. That is freely admitted. But this does not affect the
question regarding the proper scientific attitude toward communica-
tions that represent alleged facts in a transcendental world which
cannot be verified, or that may be mere theories of a discarnate being
whose range of knowledge, even though it be much greater than ours,
is subject to the same general limitations, so far as my acceptance is
concerned, as characterise all opinions of another intelligence. I do not
contradict them where they do not contravene human experience, but
neither do I feel bound to accept them, nor to class them with the
verifiable facts which may serve as evidence for the supernormal or for
the existence of a transcendental world But the reservations on this
point and on their identity may well impose upon us the duty to
require more evidence for survival of terrestrial consciousness than
would be the case if we could unhesitatingly accept the independent
intelligence and teachings of these trance personalties, as this latter
would presuppose that we had eliminated the question of secondary
personality, at least in its most perplexing form.

But the problem of their independent personality is a very different
«me from the acceptability of their opinions or their personal identity.
Their independent personality is prior to all questions, except the
identity of those for whom the evidence is scientifically sufficient.
Hence I refuse to consider their identity as any prior condition of the
spiritistic theory. Their independent personality comes first, and eve

Digitized by Google

266

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[pari

this is subordinate to that of communicators who can make out a case
for identity. Consequently the independent personality of the*
"controls" must be measured by the quantity and quality of th<
evidence that suggests preternatural intelligence. The real point ch
repere, so to speak, of the scientific theory must be the capacities of th<
human brain, the normal knowledge of Mrs. Piper, and' the limits ol
secondary personality as already known. That is to say, hav<
physiology and psychology any theories that will explain th<
phenomena without a resort to spirits? If the communications oi
others than these intermediaries bore no traces of personal identity,
we should be obliged, of course, to stop with the hypothesis of secon
dary personality as sufficient to cover the whole case, no matter ho*
we had to stretch it, unless we were audacious enough to consider th€
existence of transterrestrial intelligence as involved and not implying
the continuance of terrestrial consciousness after death. But this would
be an extremely dubious supposition, to say the least of it, considering
the language employed and the exact adjustment to our conditions oi
thought. I do not even need to state how little tolerance any intelli-
gent man should have for such a view. But the mass of evidence for
personal identity in certain cases is a presumption for the independent
personality of the trance intermediaries, and this latter then becomes
wholly subject to the evidence with which we have to measure the
capacities of the medium. The proper order for our problems is,
therefore, the personal identity of any communicator whose incidents
are terrestrially verifiable, the independent personality of the trance
intermediaries, their personal identity, and the acceptability of their
teachings. The solution of the first of these problems is offered in
the facts of this record, and does not come under notice at present
The second question may be suspended as long as we like, inasmuch as
we have in any case to reckon with the fact of secondary personality,
and may assume this for the trance personalities, without setting aside
the evidence for the identity of others, though the assumption requires
us to be more exacting in the quantity and quality of the evidence
than would otherwise be the case.

But there is much in the Piper phenomena to suggest the indepen-
dent personality of these intermediaries. This ought to be evident to
all who study carefully the dramatic play of personality of which I have
made much in the evidence for the spiritistic view. There is also the
wonderful intellectual and moral cleavage between Phinuit and the
present "controls," Imperator and Rector; between these and G. P.
and also between Phinuit and G. P., to say nothing of the same
cleavage between all other communicators. The personalities are so
numerous, so distinct, and so diversified in all the details of their
make-up that, supposing them to be secondary personalities of the

xli.] Observatums of Certain Trance Phenomena. 267

medium, approaches the attribution of infinity to her. If the
" controls " had never been more than one type of personality the case
would be very different. We should feel more keenly the difficulties
proposed by it. But there have been so many trance personalities
involved in the " control " of the medium (Phinuit, George Pelham,
Imperator, Rector, Doctor and Prudens) to say nothing of temporary
"controls" (Proceedings, Vol. VIII., pp. 28-50 ; Vol. XIII., 295-335,
370-389 ; more especially pp. 300, 303-4, 316, 358), and all with that
cleavage which consists with, or exhibits, such independence of each
other as would be true of separate persons, so that the hypothesis of
secondary personality simply attributes to Mrs. Piper's brain construc-
tive and synthetic powers which are more easily conceivable on the
spiritistic theory than on any other. If Mrs. Piper's subliminal is the
Absolute let us say so. But, as Dr. Hodgson well remarks, we may
as well call this another world and make it intelligible, as it is not
intelligible in terms designedly used to deny a transcendental exist-
ence, but which on examination perform the Hegelian process of
either becoming altogether meaningless or identifying a conception
with its own opposite which it was intended to contradict. All this
is worked out with a completeness by Dr. Hodgson that I need not
repeat, but shall only refer the reader to his discussion (Proceedings,
Vol. XIII., pp. 370-406). I may state, however, that I did not see
clearly the meaning of his statements until my own facts induced
the same conclusion independently of his language. All this, too,
can be said while keeping in mind such cases as that of Dr. Morton
Prince {Proceedings, Vol. XV., pp. 466-483), and that of M. Flournoy
(From India to the Planet Mars).

It will be apparent, therefore, why I refuse to treat our ignorance
about these trance personalities as anything like forcible objections or
nerious difficulties in the way of the spiritistic theory. They may
indicate a problem which it is desirable to solve. But this does not
subordinate the question of personal identity in the case of verifiable
facts to either the independent personality or the personal identity of
these "controls," whom we might find it difficult or impossible to
investigate. Hence the only view which I feel called upon to favour
i* that the spiritistic theory is well supported in the case of the persons
represented as communicators to me. All other questions are held in
abeyance as involving a possible, if not a proved spiritistic interpreta-
tion, especially as they are consistent with it and possess some
independent probabilities.

It may interest the reader to know at this point how little evidence
may be necessary to establish identity with sufficient certitude an'
that this evidence may not be as specific as we have been accuston
to demand in our reports of the Piper case. I do not mean by thit

268

J. H. Hydop, PhJ).

[PART

relax our vigilance in the matter of proof, but to indicate that when
identity is established we have only to consider how far telepathy can
account for the complexity of the phenomena. My experiments on the
Identification of Personality show that identity may often become
assured, and with good reason, upon evidence that was extremely
indefinite and apparently unfit for the purpose, as judged by the
standards we have usually adopted in this study. I was much
surprised by the fact. The reader may compare the following refer-
ences : Questions 2 and 9, pp. 563-4 ; 9, p. 570 ; 9, p. 577 ; 3 and 7, pp.
586-7; 11 and 16, pp. 587-8; 2, p. 583; 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16,
and 17, pp. 609-613, and especially Question 7, p. 619.

I come now to an objection which must necessarily carry more
weight than any that I have considered, at least to those who aiv
either devoid of resources for the justification of further scepticism or
defective in the appreciation of the character and consequences
of hypotheses that are absolutely without any scientific support
independently of the Piper phenomena themselves. The objection
was practically stated in the difficulty just dismissed, and con-
sidered somewhat in the discussion of the telepathic theorv
(Cf. p. 152). It is the supposition combining the functions of
telepathy and secondary personality to explain the case, the one to
give the significant data and the other the play of independent
personality. That is to say, we may suppose that we have the
fortuitous combination of capacities which usually or always have
been separated in other abnormal cases. I think that any reader of the
facts will admit that the whole case cannot be adequately explained
by what we understand by telepathy alone in either its spontaneous or
its experimental aspects, no matter what extension we choose to give
it. The dramatic play of personality is not like anything that we know
of in telepathy. Telepathy may involve a subliminal process like that
of secondary personality, but as it is known in its experimental and
spontaneous forms it does not exhibit the intelligent selectiveness and
teleological unity that are so characteristic of the Piper phenomena.
In its acquisition of data it resembles more nearly a mechanical
process, or the automatism of abnormal association. For that reason
we cannot assume that secondary personality in such a dramatic form
as this record shows is a necessary part of the conditions connected with
supernormal knowledge. On the other hand, from all that we know of
ndary personality where it does not assume the spiritistic form at
*id even where it evidently tries to simulate it, though it displays
'tation of another personahty than that of tne subject, it never
ices the life and experience of other subjects than the one
^ them, whether living or dead and absolutely unknown to

Digitized by Google

xli.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 26&-

this subject. Hence it is equally apparent that secondary personality
alone cannot account for the phenomena. But may we not combine
these suppositions in this fortunate instance so that the function of
one process may supplement the defects of the other 1

The objection which this combination embodies, however, as it
is stated here, is a purely a priori one, and I accept it merely
as a concession to the precautions which the student may wish to
entertain who is familiar with the phenomena of secondary per-
sonality elsewhere and often claimed to be spiritistic, but who has
not minutely acquainted himself with the case before us. But I cannot
allow the objection to have any scientific weight whatever unless he
support the appeal to secondary personality by remarking features in
this instance that justify comparison with other cases admitted to be
neither spiritistic nor telepathic. That is to say, we must show that
this dramatic play of personality is a sufficiently general quality of the
secondary consciousness to invoke suspicion in this instance. We
cannot permit the objection to remain in abstracto. It must produce
evidence, and empirical evidence at that, for the one crucial point that
will justify comparison.

The first analogy that would suggest itself to the critic in the
attempt to supply this empirical evidence would be multiplex
personality. We know that this is a fact, and that it often betrays
no sign of spiritistic phenomena. The experiments of Pierre Janet
(U Automatisme Psychologique and Nivroses et Idies Fixes), Dr. Morton
Prince (Proceedings, Vol. XIV., pp. 79-98), and others ad nauseam,
show that the same brain may assume different personalities where the
cleavage is wonderfully marked and suggestive. Hypnosis can produce
it in dual form almost at pleasure, and might develop it further if tried.

But I shall not illustrate it in detail, as I have done enough to
indicate that I recognise it. But I reject at the outset any legitimate
comparison between multiplex personality in hypnotism and that which
we find in the Piper case, though I concede very frankly and fully the
right of any one who has not studied these phenomena, but who has
seen something of the spiritistic claims that have no better foundation
than secondary consciousness, to defend himself against illusion by
the supposition which I nevertheless reject. The resemblance is wholly
superficial and rather in name than in reality. The term " multiplex
personality" seems to cover both cases, but it does not correctly
describe the same facts in each case. The multiplex personality of
both auto and hetero-hypnosis does not exhibit any dramatic play. It
may imitate another person under suggestion, or reproduce another
apparent personality than the normal, but it does not imitate
conscious intercourse between these dual or several streams of menta1
action teleologically adjusted to a common end. This last is t1

270

J. H. HysUrp, Ph.D.

[part

dramatic play which I have discussed. / tnnst insist upon the
radical distinction between either the imitation under suggestion of
another personality than the subject, or the production, spontaneously
or under suggestion, of a secondary consciousness drawing tvithout
knowledge or recognition upon the experience, habit, language, etc., of
the normal stream, and that dramatic interplay of different personalities
in the same subject that reproduces tlie intercourse of real persons with
each other. This latter is what I have meant by the dramatic play of
personality and it is very different from dramatic imitation of it in
any case. Psychologically the two are different, and this is true even
on the assumption that they are both forms of secondary personality.
The point is not to prove that the proper dramatic interplay of
personality is spiritistic, but that it is different from the dramatic
personality of suggestion, and that it is just what we should expect
on the spiritistic hypothesis. The change from one personality
to another in the phenomena of secondary consciousness may be
as sudden as you please, but it is neither one of those ad libitttm
processes which always imitates the existence of real persons, nor
a process which adjusts itself to a representatively complex and
external situation which makes the acts teleologically intelligible
in terms of a possible real existence, as in what I have described
in the Piper case. It shows no trace of such complex and accurate
adjustment. If it exhibits anything like adjustment at all, it is
either absurd adjustment to a wholly imaginary world created by
suggestion, or it remains passive and inert until some form of foreign
suggestion, or inner caprice, alters its direction and mnemonic unity.
Nor does it help the argument any to produce the alterations of hetero-
suggestion. These are the purely passive reflexes of the hypnotic
operator, and show neither such spontaneity as we observe in the
trance personalities of Mrs. Piper, with their intelligent and rationally
teleological action, nor the representation of a consistent and intel-
ligible situation outside the range of our knowledge. 'Hence I repudiate
all but the most superficial comparison and resemblance between
tnultiplex personality in hypnosis and the trance personalities under
/consideration, and I think every careful student of the case will agree
with this view. The one point which it is necessary to find in the
case in order to justify suspicion, namely, the dramatic interplay
l>etween different personalities in the same object, and adjustment to
varying conditions simulating a transcendental reality, is not discover-
able in the multiplex personality of hypnosis in so far as it has been
studied.

But there is a more important objection to this comparison of the
trance personalities of Mrs. Piper with the multiplex personality of
hypnosis. The latter nearly always, if not absolutely always, shows a

Digitized by

XLI.J Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena, 271

point of connection and unity between two or more streams of
consciousness which indicate an identity of subject in spite of the
apparent plurality of subjects. The cleavage is purely a mnemonic
defect, and is due to a suspension of the recognitive process. The
facts belong to the same ego or subject without the recognition that
they occurred in the stream of consciousness which as a whole seems
lost. The amnesia is all but perfect, and may even be perfect in so far
as definite recognitive processes are concerned. The retention and
reproduction remain with an organising process that is minus the act
of either localisation or recognition within the normal stream. This is
very common in our dreams. I recorded one instance of a similar
phenomenon in the waking state of Mrs. D. (Proceedings, Vol. XII.,
pp. 262-3), Miss X. records in her papers quite a number of experi-
ences in which a message comes unrecognised from the subliminal into
the supraliminal, and the phenomenon is a familiar one to a psychical
researcher (Proceedings, Vol. XL, pp. 114-144). Take also the case
of the hypnotised artist who was told that he was a certain physician
and in his imaginary practice of medicine prescribed that his patient
nhould go and paint pictures (Boris Sidis : Psychology of Suggestion,
p. 257) ; also the case of Dr. Dana, in which the amnesic subject
wished the lady to whom he was engaged to remain with him, though
he had completely forgotten her name and his own with his whole
life, and did not even know the meaning of the very word marriage
(Psychological Review: Vol. I., pp. 570-580; especially p. 572;.
The best case is that of Ansel Bourne in our own records, where there
were several connections between the auto-hypnotic and the normal
Htream (Proceedings, Vol. VII., pp. 221-257.) There is also a most
interesting case in the experiments of Pierre Janet discussed by
Mr. Myers (Proceedings, Vol. V., pp. 376-8). My own case also illus-
trates the phenomenon on a smaller scale. The hypnotic subject could
not recall his own name or age, but recalled the names of his com-
panions in both his normal and abnormal state very easily and of his
normal life only a few incidents (p. 641). But not to continue
cases in which the cleavage is almost perfect, the whole phenomenon
<»f post-hypnotic suggestion illustrates this connection in the same
subject, and it is too familiar to psychiatrists to require further
mention. This interconnection between " the two or more selves " is
generally admitted, and it is only the failure to recognise the con-
nection that gives the appearance of a total cleavage and of a dual
subject (Cf. Boris Sidis : Psychology of Suggestion, pp. 162-179, and
Pierre Janet : L Automatism* Psychologique pp. 73-91)

Now this unity is not a characteristic of the "multiplex per-
sonalityw of the Piper case. The only interconnection (with the
exception of facts to be noted presently) that is observable in it is a

272

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

facsimile of the interconnection between two minds self-consciously
exchanging ideas. Rector does not appropriate the facts that
belong to G. P., unless some natural hint of their foreign source
is given, as we attribute the like to others in actual life. Phinuit
and G. P. refer to each other as independent realities, and appropriate
nothing from one another which does not resemble the conscious
intercourse between two beings. No unconscious interconnection, a.<
in the ordinary cases of hypnosis and secondary personality, seems evei
to show itself. It has been uniformly the same throughout the history
of the Piper phenomena (Cf. my brother and my sister communicating
for others, pp. 100-108).

The only facts that seem to supply the necessary desiderata foi
such a comparison are those cases of secondary consciousness in which
one of the personalities actually recognises another and distinguishes
between the two as if they were really different persons (Cf. Pierre
Janet V 'Atitomatisme Psychologique, pp. 67-125, and 271-354 ; Pro-
ceedings, Vol. V., pp. 393-395, and Vol. XIV., pp. 366-372;
Vol. XV., pp. 466-483). There is something like dramatic play
in these instances ; at least in respect to the apparent independence of
the personalities and their recognition one of another as if real and
not of the same subject. Nevertheless, we often find even in these the
appropriation of another's memories, experiences and personal traits
in a way that suggests the ordinary interconnection between apparently
separate streams of consciousness, as characterises the general type of
multiplex personality. The recognition is rarely, if ever, reciprocal.
I have never seen it reciprocal. There is occasionally, at least, some
resemblance to this play in our dreams. Karl Du Prel has remarked
this fact also (Philosophy of Mysticism, Vol. I., p, 137).

But before admitting more force in these cases than may be
permitted it is worth while to remark that recent experimenters and
students very much discredit the genuineness of these trained
SalpStriere patients. But I shall not encourage scepticism on this
point for the sake of denying the comparison between the cases and
the dramatic play of the Piper phenomena. I shall assume their
genuineness and press the resemblance as far as it will go, for the
reason that we cannot afford to defend the spiritistic theory at the
expense of facts which might possibly present a clue to the way- out of
it. Nevertheless, the existing doubt about them is legitimate vantage
ground for caution against dogmatism in making the comparison, at
least until the cases are examined.

But the best external evidence of this dramatic play, or at least
simulation of it, is the fact of automatic writing with its accompani-
ments. A general reference to the many articles in the Proceedings is
sufficient on this point. They show a personality of which the

XLL] Observations of Certmn Tranrute Phenomena. 273

supraliminal is unaware in the same subject, palming off on this
supraliminal, knowledge which appears to come from some independent
source, but which study shows originates from the subliminal. The
automatic self simply plays hide and seek with the normal self. Henoe
putting together these cases of automatic writing and the incidents of
apparently independent personalities in hypnotic experiments, may we
not have sufficient dramatic play to give some trouble to the argument
for spiritism from that characteristic 1 Assume also that, in the process
of fifteen years' experimenting and careful directions under Professor
James, Dr. Hodgson and others, Mrs. Piper has gradually, though
unconsciously, become the subject of a thorough education into the
more than usually perfect instance of multiplex personality in which
the dramatic play can reproduce the realism that we observe in it

Then if we can obtain after this any empirical evidence of a deep
unity below this diversity of personality in the Piper case and thus
satisfy the demand of physiology for one brain subject, with this
underlying unity and unusually educated power to simulate inde-
pendent personalities, we may find the spiritistic theory face to face
with a serious difficulty, when we add telepathy to account for the
objective facts of the record. There are some interesting facts in
these phenomena which might be used to establish this very unity.

For instance, my brother Charles, in answer to my question as to
what he died with, asks me : " Is scarlet fever a bad thing to have in
the body !" (p. 330). Now I find this exact form of expression by
another person back in the Phinuit regime : " Do you think consump-
tion a bad thing 1" (VoL XIII., pp. 379 or 522). In my sittings my
father repeats his expectation that he will be able to tell me "all he
ever knew " (p. 325). G. P. uses the same expression in the Phinuit
days (VoL XIH., p. 432). My father's statement that lam" not the
strongest man" (p. 333) is duplicated in a similar statement by
Phinuit, made in 1894 to another person : " You're not the strongest
man in the country " (Vol. XIII., p. 519). Again my father said : " If
jour father ever lived I am his spirit. I am he. I am he" (p. 475).
Professor Newbold got the same phrase from another person: "If
Fred Morton ever lived I am he " (VoL XIV., p. 15). The incident
which my father narrates about the boat and his sister helping him out
of difficulty (p. 478) suggests comparison with a somewhat similar
communication to Professor Lodge in England in 1889 (Vol. VI., p.
520). Again in the Imperator regime some such statement as, " May
God have you in His holy keeping" is very common and also the
phrase " keep you in His holy keeping." Phinuit uses the expression
in 1889, " God keep you in His holy keeping " (VoL VI., p. 525). Thia
is all the more remarkable because Phinuit has no specially religious
characteristic, and this is the first instance and the only one in which

274

J. H. Hyalop, Ph D.

[part

I have remarked anything like piety or cant in him. A communication
from Professor Lodge's uncle speaks of the uncle's going " gunning "
at one time, a word which Professor Lodge says is " rank American."
(Compare also the words "push" and "pull," p. 340.) These
are all that I know, though they are probably more numerous.
But such as they are they seem to reflect just the possible unity which
is necessary for a background to the diversity of personality which
appears in the Piper case and which assimilates it to multiplex
personality generally, so that if we can only add the most extended
capacity for telepathy to this we should seem to have at least a
plausible escape from spiritism.

In reply, however, it must be said that the cogency of these
incidents for establishing a unity between the various "controls*
in the Piper phenomena is greatly impaired by the following considera-
tions. The expression " not a bad thing " is too common in general
usage to attach the slightest value beyond chance coincidence to its
occurrence in two cases so far apart. Were it not so common an
expression in precisely such emergencies we might sustain a suspicion,
and if it had been a common way of alluding to sickness or disagree-
able facts throughout the history of the Piper case the coincidence
might suggest a doubt. But this single instance of it is worthless
evidentially for giving unity to the different regimes involved, especially
as the admission of its significance for any such view would so
eliminate the necessity of considering chance in the coincidence of
psychical research generally as to make the case at large far stronger
for spiritism than the sceptic is willing to concede. We cannot safely
discard chance in this problem. The same can be said of the
coincidence in the expression about my comparative strength and the
incidents about the boats. The mode of expression is a very common
one and scarcely anyone is exempt from such an escapade as is
described in the boat incident. It is not surprising that both
should occur. In fact, it might be surprising that this duplication
does not occur more frequently than it does, if only on the ground of
ordinary physiological analogies that a nervous system should reflect
the effects of its experience even in transmitting the facts that belong
to the consciousness of others. We cannot attach any special value to
the Americanism, " gunning," as it does not necessarily represent the
use of an American word by an Englishman who never knew it. If
we had to suppose that Professor Lodge's uncle was the direct com-
municator the case would be more plausible. But the expression is
one of Phinuit's and represents his way of putting a message that
might have been very different. This modification of a message
by the " control " is a most common incident. (Compare use of
the word "Sunday," p. 432.) Now Phinuit, whether we regard

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations, of Certain Trance Phenomena. 2T5

him as a real spirit* or the secondary personality of Mrs. Piper,
was American in his experience as a " control," and it would be
natural from all that we know either of the action of a real conscious-
ness, or from the natural influence of the medium upon any transmitted
fact, that such a word might be taken to express a thought t*hat the
" control " either obtained in fragments or had to express in its own
way. Besides there is actually on record in the communications them-
selves the statement, purporting to come from Mr. E., that Phinuit
likes to pick up just such words and phrases for use (Proceedings,
Vol. VI., p. 517). This statement is born out also by a number of
terms that could be selected from the reports, such as a " nine-shooter,"
" get out," " skip," " gave them a tuning," " slumped through," etc.
(Proceedings, Vol. VI., pp. 510, 519, 520, 521). These latter instances
do not illustrate the unity between the two regimes, but only the
influence of the "control's" mind on the result, so that all such
instances fall to the ground as objections. Besides this, the Imperator
regime seems to be exempt from their repetition, observing, as it does,
all the dignities of the occasion.

There is more apparent force in the other two cases, owing to the
peculiar form of expression in one and to the essentially religious and
Imperator type of language in the other, a feature that is quite opposed
to the character of Phinuit. The expression, "have in His holy
keeping " is too common in religious service and human memory to
tolerate any secure argument for the unity of the different personalities
under consideration. Besides, in spite of his irreligious temper, Phinuit
is not averse to a " God bless you " at times, and might very well resort
to so common an expression as the one indicated by mere chance,
so that the coincidence has no evidential value.

We are then left to the first of the last two phrases for the
argument to show the unity of the trance personalities, namely, the
statement : " If I ever lived," etc. This instance is more striking and
interesting because it does not represent so common an expression or
form of putting the thought as in the other instances. But after
disqualifying the other cases as arguments, it is a poor refuge to make
so gigantic a conclusion as a unity of subject for the universal cleavage
we observe in the case depend upon this one little exception and
coincidence. Chance could not figure in anything if we allowed
ourselves to attach causal significance to such a phenomenon as this.
Even if the causal unity be there as a fact, we should require
better evidence than we have in this instance to justify conviction.
When we add to this both the influence of the medium's organism
and that of the "controls" upon the form of the communications,
as is marked in the thousands of cases where this unity of trance
personalities is not even suspected, we have a rather invulnerable

Digitized by

276

H. Hyelop, Ph.D.

[PAIT

Argument against attaching much value to this one coincidence, in
spite of the fact that it belongs to two regimes. Dr. Hodgson will
deal with this feature at length in a later report. But when examined
it does not give any unity to the different personalities, but only shows
the limitations under which different personalities work, and the
suggestion of its possibility is actually so weak evidentially that I
should not even mention or discuss it, were it not that it is imperative
that we search every nook and corner for difficulties in the spiritistic
hypothesis. But the weakness of the case is evident when we observe
the tremendous general cleavage between these personalities that are
demonstrably no part of the medium's normal equipment. I shall have
to leave the confirmation of this by the empirical data of the record to
the reader, as it would occupy too much space here to even touch upon
it. Especially is the case reinforced by the fact that if there be any
unity at all between the various trance personalities, it should show
itself far more frequently, as it does so in the ordinary cases of
secondary personality, where the limitations of the normal self con-
stantly reflect themselves in the secondary self, even when the latter
appears the superior. What astonishes one in the Piper instance is to
find that this supposed unity does not exhibit itself as it should if it
exist at all. Casual coincidences will not show it, and there is no such
common choice of expressions and language as so easily connects the
primary and secondary selves in the usual cases of hypnosis, where,
though recognition is interrupted or suspended, the main incidents of
the general character, habits, and expressions will often, and perhaps
inevitably creep out and betray the unity of the two selves. But the
only trace of this unity in the Piper case is either this casual unity,
whose significance we have to reject, or the unity of her own subliminal
and supraliminal which is to be expected in all circumstances, but
which does not reflect itself in the trance personalities in any sugges-
tive way. The habits of the organism, whether physical or psychical,
subliminal or supraliminal, ought to be found in the results, and might
be expected, on all natural grounds of experience, to affect the perfect
integrity of the separate personalities on any theory whatsoever. But
the psychical streams represented in the various trance personalities
exhibit an independence of these habits and a cleavage between them-
selves, as well as between them and the many communicators involved,
that is far more perfect than any study of secondary consciousness
— would lead us to expect. A minute study of the case will bear this
*ement out beyond question, while it is absolutely necessary to

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 277

on a collective basis of argument, and more especially as it is not
qualified even to suggest any marked influence from either organic or
subliminal habits on the part of the medium. The organic and psychic
unity should coincide in order to make out even a plausible case for
secondary personality in the explanation of this dramatic play, while
there should not be any such overwhelming distinctness of character
and language between Phinuit, G. P., and Imperator as appear, and
that does not coincide with organic and subliminal or supraliminal
functions derived from experience in some form. This is perfectly
evident and conclusive in studying the remarkable difference between
the trance condition and Mrs. Piper's emergence from it. The
phenomena of secondary personality are frequent in the latter, but never
noticeable in the former, unless hunted for with the utmost care in
sporadic instances which in no way suggest any unity in the various
trance personalities. Observe the very pertinent fact that the trance
personalities become objective realities in the third person to Mrs.
Piper's subliminal as she emerges from the trance and catches messages
only in broken fragments. The cleavage between the trance condition
in respect of personality and that of the subliminal emergence from it
is very different from the cleavage between the two subliminals which
she exhibits in this emergence. In fact, the cleavage hardly exists in
this latter at all. But it is most interesting to note that just where
the ordinary phenomena of secondary consciousness begin to appear
in Mrs. Piper the spiritistic begin to disappear, namely, the
indications that we are dealing with realities other than subliminal
mental states.

Having thus disposed of all empirical evidence in the Piper record
itself in favour of the necessary unity between the various " controls,1'
as a condition of appealing to secondary personality in dispute of
the spiritistic significance in the phenomena, I go on to consider the
objection from the dramatic colouring in other instances of secondary
consciousness, a fact that is designed to classify this case inductively
with all others. In what may be called the dramatic play of hypnosis,
though it bears no essential comparison with the Piper case, as I have
shown in the distinction between dramatic imitation and dramatic
interplay between different personalities, there is yet a participation
sometimes by one personality in the experience of another. This is
seldom, or never, reciprocal. But secondary personality betrays a
community of ideas that never occurs in the Piper case except as
this community conforms to the conception and representation of
conversation and intercourse between real beings. In the ordinary
instance of secondary consciousness these data appear as stolen, or as
common property, and acknowledgments are seldom made. Thr
community is automatic and not self-conscious. But both the for

Digitized by Google

278

H. Hyalop, PhD.

[part

and the matter of the intercourse between the trance personalities of
Mrs. Piper represent the reciprocity of sane and intelligent exchange
of ideas. There always appears either a stated reason for this com-
munity in the nature of the situation real or represented, or the
community is of a kind that betrays no resemblance to the indis-
criminate access of one hypnotic personality to the experience of
another. There is too much intelligence and natural adjustment to a
possibly real and complex situation in a transcendental world, in our
case, to compare it with the mechanical action of the usual secondary
consciousness which does not even imagine a real or fictitious situation
for intercourse between personalities, and consequently the Piper
phenomena get such a unity of a rational sort as characterises distinct
persons working like a collective whole to a common end. This is
spiritistic. The ends of secondary personality are at cross purposes and
are not unified at all in anything but their accidents. Not so with the
Piper case. Its unity is fundamental with respect to its avowed end,
namely, the proof of individual survival, but not in respect of the
agencies that work together toward that end. Their personalities
show no reciprocity of ideas or experience that is not like the inter-
course of real beings in working for the same end. The contrast in
this respect with the so-called dramatic play of pseudo-spiritistic
phenomena is very striking, where, as I have said, we get the most
suggestive evidence of any comparison whatever with the characteristic
under consideration. The whole play of ordinary automatic writing is
mechanical and shows all the limitations and the marks which usually
circumscribe both the fact and the pretensions of a transcendental
world. When it reaches the point of supposing such a world, it is
haunted with the oracular obscurity and contradictions of the natural
ignorance of any brain on such a subject, as well as the limitations of
supraliminal experience. There is an organic unity in the Piper case
that is established by its end, not by its mental states. Hence that
comparison with others which the student of secondary personality is
wont to make is to be dismissed, so that we are left without adequate
analogies in general to reduce the uniqueness of the Piper phenomena.
This does not mean, of course, that a man cannot adhere to the
hypothesis of a combination of secondary personality and telepathy
to account for them, but it does mean that the hypothesis is
without adequate empirical and scientific evidence in its support.
It is purely a priori and so based upon merely accidental resem-
blances. But such a judgment cannot be entertained as anything
more than an evasion of its significance until adequate evidence is
produced in cases unquestionably non-spiritistic to show a dramatic
play so perfect and realistic as in the one under discussion. I do
not know a particle of evidence for any such characteristic carried out

Digitized by Google

Observation* of Certain Trance PhenoTnena.

279

with such organic consistency and intelligence toward a single end and
with such distinctness of personal intelligence and character as here.
Pierre Janet's Leonie 2 criticising Leonie 1 with a full consciousness
of the tatter's life, and Dr. Morton Prince's X 3 laughing at X 1 while
knowing all and more than X 1, do not in the slightest resemble the
interplay of personality with its reciprocal exchange of ideas, as if
real, that so characterises the Piper case. Consequently, I must adhere
to the thesis that the only objection to the spiritistic theory which
I can admit is extremely tenuous and dubious on the one hand, and
involves such a combination of enormous powers and unconscious
deception on the other, as denes all ordinary scientific suppositions
in this direction. The sceptic's only resource in the last analysis
is the unique character of the case, and a demand for its
repetition in another instance before giving in his allegiance.
But this is an abandonment of scientific evidence for his theory of
secondary personality, while we have a vast mass of other phenomena
pointing in the same direction and which are not discredited by this
explanation of the Piper case, as they are of a spontaneous and
experimental kind not connected with any exhibition of secondary
consciousness even in appearance, though they are inferior to the Piper
record in credentials. The difference, however, is one that cannot be
described briefly to any man who does not take the pains to examine
and study carefully the reports on the case. It is a difference which
every one will have to see for himself, and I should not have taken the
trouble here to discuss it at all in language that will seem to imply at
least some resemblance to secondary personality, had it not been
necessary to indicate to the reader that I fully reckoned with that
hypothesis in making up my convictions. The accusation that it is
merely what I have rejected will be made generally by persons who
have neither studied phenomena like these in general nor adequately
examined the special case before us. They cannot be refuted by any
brief characterisation of the phenomena that I can give here, and
hence I can only deny the analogy which they imagine and challenge
them to reproduce it in the same form and extent without the evidence
of personal identity, as a condition of revising the provisional
hypothesis that I have accepted. It will require very little dispas-
sionate study of the dramatic interplay of different personalities to
discover the rationality of supposing them independent intelligences
until the evidence for personal identity in the incidents of the record
is dislodged, and when we observe the vast amount of evidence against
any psychical unity in these personalities and that the dramatic play
of personality is not imitative and mechanical, but intelligent and
' adjusted to a rational end, we shall be satisfied to use the comparison
| with secondary personality with very great caution, and only as a.
' Digitized by Google

280

J. H. Hydop, PhD.

[part

defence against any exposure to illusion. But the moment we
seriously examine the consequences to whioh the application oi
such a theory .leads in its appropriation of brain powers without
empirical evidence, and the amount oi unconscious deception involved
in the actual intelligence displayed by these phenomena, we shall
wonder whether "spiritualists" have been the only victims oi
credulity.

I have spoken all along, however, of secondary personality and it*
combination with telepathy as if they were necessarily inconsistent
with spiritism. The reason for this assumed inconsistency is the
evidential problem in the case. But there is a way to look at secon-
dary personality, whether with or without telepathy, as a condition oi
the proof of spiritism, even though its diversified forms are an obstacle
in evidential matters. By this I mean that secondary personality may
be a transitional state between normal consciousness and the conditions
necessary for communication with a transcendental world.

We must not forget that secondary personality is not very clearly
denned. It is an expression very largely for our ignorance in regard
to many of its conditions and phenomena. We require some phrase
for the activities that seem, superficially at least, to He between the
presumably mechanical functions of the brain which exhibit no
organising intelligence and those which so completely imitate and
reproduce all the phenomena of consciousness that they cannot
apparently be classified with the former, while the absence of mnemonic
connection with the normal state separates them from that class. But
in spite of their apparent nature as a form of consciousness they are
not accessible to introspection and study of the individual who
experiences them, and hence they must remain more or less unknown
to those who are best qualified to pronounce upon their character and
causes. In addition, however, to this field of ignorance regarding the
matter there is another aspect of it that is equally undefined, and that
is so far favorable to the possibility that secondary personality may be
a transitional condition to that delicate and complex combination of
circumstances under which communications of an intelligible sort from
the dead can be effected. This is the extreme elasticity of the concep-
tion which secondary personality represents. It connotes every
condition of subliminal phenomena between somnambulic suggestibility
in which the mind seems entirely passive and those spontaneous
activities that completely simulate another personal mind than the
normal. In this wide gamut every imaginable phase of mental action
between normal consciousness and pure unconsciousness may be repre-
sented, and this, too, with interminable degrees of complexity. If the
" subliminal " does not coincide with secondary personality it must
represent a still wider field of nescience. But this question aside, the

Digitized by Google

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 281

extremely elastic conception which secondary personality involves,
having no definable limits except those which circumscribe the nature,
functions and experience of the subject itself, enables us to study
its various phases with reference to the different degrees of spontaneity
and receptivity of which it may be capable. With the dominance of
its spontaneity, whether this consisted in a play upon the subject's own
experience mnemonically separated from the supraliminal conscious-
ness, as in automatic writing, somnambulism and hypnosis, or in the
fabrication of a world of its own like dreams and hallucinations
(Cf. M. Flournoy's case, From India to the Planet Mars), we should
expect no communications from a transcendental world, even though
the impulse of the subject to action came from that source, but
we should expect only the various play of its own functions on the
material of normal experience, divested of the inhibitions and environ-
ment constituted by the psychological conditions accompanying
normal consciousness. But, on the other hand, just in proportion
to the elimination of this spontaneous aetion and of the various
influences that determine the limits of active secondary person-
ality, we might obtain a condition susceptible of reflecting, like
the sensibility of the physical organism, the influences of an outside
mental world.

Now if we only add to this the possibility that in such a transcen-
dental world the normal method of communication is telepathic, we
can understand why, in the ordinary states of secondary personality
where the conditions for telepathic communication even between the
living are not supplied, spiritistic messages of an evidential character
do not occur though the subject be aware of a transcendental stimulus,
and that secondary personality might be a connecting link between
a material and a spiritual world, and so abnormal to both. Unless it
commonly accompanied telepathic phenomena between the living, we
would expect that it should either be wholly eliminated or certain con-
ditions realised before we could receive telepathic messages from the
dead. In this connection it may be worth noting as possibly corrobor-
ative of this view that telepathy between living minds is extremely
sporadic and capricious. It is subject to conditions that betray no
evidence of reproducing the personality of any one, but conforms to
laws like mechanical forces, namely, impressibility only to present
active energies. Experimental telepathy, as I have often remarked
here, shows no tendency to select teleologically, with a view to repre-
senting another's identity, the facts of the agent's or other living
person's memory, bnt it apparently limits its access to present func-
tional action, and eschews quiescent states, precisely as in the
mechanical world where only actual energy effects anything. If then,
we suppose that our messages conform to this law we must assume that

fc82

J. H. Hyslop, PhJ).

[part

the telepathy is from the dead and less probably from the living,
especially when it assumes the form and selectivenees of personal
identity. Moreover the stages of secondary personality nearest the
normal consciousness may limit telepathic access, when that occurs, to
sporadic acquisitions in the material world, as its suggestibility is
adjusted to such conditions ; and just in proportion as we suppress or
eliminate this secondary personality in its spontaneous and active form,
and sever its connection from the influence of normal experience and
— memory, we may bring the subject into telepathic rapport with the
transcendental world, and messages under these conditions would
naturally reflect the influence of discarnate spirits. If they require to
be in a secondary state in order to communicate, thus cutting them off
from their normal spiritual life, we should expect them to communicate
facts representative only of their past, and these perhaps of a trivial
and confused kind, or even nothing but dream fabrications like our
somnambulistic phenomena and the idiotic rambling like much of the
the secondary personality that has so often passed for spiritistic
messages.

I do not assume, or beg the question here as to the existence of
such a transcendental world, for I know that this Is the issue to be
proved. I am only postulating it hypothetically for the better repre-
sentation of the complex conditions that may be necessary for
connecting it, if possible, evidentially with the known material world.
Its possibility must be taken for granted because of our ignorance in
regard to the negative. Hence we have only to extend what we know
of both telepathy and secondary personality in order to conceive how
the evidential problem may be solved.

But suppose telepathy may not be the mode of communication in
a transcendental world, there is yet a resource for spiritism in the
complications of secondary personality and that nice balance of its
functions which may be necessary to establish rapport with the trans-
cendental life. Now we very seldom find any conscious interpenetra-
tion of the several streams of consciousness in the phenomena of
multiplex personality. The cleavage is almost universally absolute.
Personally I know of but one exception and the facts of this instance
are not yet made public. At any rate, it is so rare that we musv
expect a fortunate combination of circumstances to secure the inter-
penetration of two or more personalities consciously. Whatever the
influences, therefore, that may be brought to bear upon the subliminal
we must expect that they will not often reflect themselves in the
supralimininal, or in actions and evidence properly belonging to the
latter. Now if we remember two things in this situation, (1) that
some motor effect or action, vocal or graphic, is essential in all con-
ditions for our knowledge of the mental activity of the subject, and

Digitized by Google

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 283

(2) that in the usual suspense of normal consciousness, as in sleep,
paralysis, catalepsy, etc., motor functions are also suspended unless by
chance they are accessible to suggestion — if we remember these two
facts, we will understand what a rare combination of circumstances
may be necessary to the retention of motor functions, vocal or graphic,
while secondary personality is reduced to the passive condition possibly
necessary to the receipt of transcendental communications and their
transmission to us through that retained motor action. In ordinary
secondary personality we have the retention of motor functions
possibly because it is active, but in reducing this condition to the
same passive condition that sleep is assumed to produce for the supra-
liminal it would only be natural to suspend these motor functions also.
Consequently we might often, in the complex vicissitudes of these
phenomena, obtain a condition for the reception of messages, but no
conditions for their motor expression. Whatever the mode of normal
communication in a spiritual world may be, therefore, we require
either that the interpenetration of the subliminal, by hypothesis
accessible to communications, with the supraliminal which regularly
controls the machinery of expression, or that condition of eliminated
spontaneity in the transitionary phenomena of secondary personality
combined with the retention of the proper motor functions, so that we
should be able to obtain evidential facts of any kind. The difficulty,
of course, is to be assured of such a condition. But as it is the content
or subject matter of the phenomena of secondary personality as
ordinarily known, and not the state itself, or any knowledge
of what it necessarily is, that has discredited spiritism as usually
maintained, we are entitled at least to ask the question whether
secondary personality may not really be what is imagined here to
be possible, namely, a transitional state between normal consciousness
and the conditions necessary for communication. If this be possible
we cannot consider it as in any way opposed to spiritism except on the
evidential side when its content fails to realise the demands of
that theory. Rapport with the discarnate is the desideratum.

One remark here is borne out by the modern theory of hallucinations.
This is that they are due to secondary stimuli. That is to say, they
originate in a stimulus, but in one that is not co-ordinated with the
sense apparently affected by it. To illustrate, an apparition in the
field of vision may be caused by some stimulus in hearing or other locus
of the sensorium, or a sound apparently heard may be due abnormally
to an impression received elsewhere than the ear. In all such cases,
the world of consciousness is not represented by the result of the
stimulus as it is supposed to be in normal sensory experience. That is
to say, the stimulus comes from one world and the representation is o'
another. Armed with this conception we may explain those cases

Digitized by Google

284

J. H. Hyelop, Ph.D.

[part

alleged and apparent communication in which the content of the
messages is hallucination, secondary personality, or nnconscious fabrica-
tion. Supposing that the impulse or stimulus came from the trans-
cendental world and the representation of the facts from the action of
the subject's own mind, we can understand, on the theory of hallucina-
tions, how the conviction that the phenomena are spiritistic should arise
and yet that the content should be manifestly absurd and incredible.
Possibly some of Swedenborg's experiences are explicable on this
hypothesis, and if so, we can understand that the deception apparent
in such mental action is not of the sort to justify the supposition that
it is in any sense diabolic, but is purely automatic and unintentional,
that is, subliminal automatism. I do not mean to imply that any such
condition is frequent, since the field of secondary personality is so large
in which it is not necessary to suppose more than the dream play of
the mind on its own experience, and the natural automatism of the
subject so qualifies the suspicion of fiendish purposes that we may
allow such cases as are here imagined to be very rare, and admit them
only where the subject matter shows a mixture of the veridical messages
and evident hallucination. The suggestibility of the secondary state
is so delicate and its sensory action, like that of dreams, so ready to
explode into products of its own manufacture, that we must in some
way expect to eliminate this spontaneity in order to effect the proper
rapport for genuine communications. That is to say, eliminate the
conditions that tend to produce hallucinations or the fabrications of
secondary personality, and we may obtain genuine messages from a
transcendental world while it will not be necessary to suspect the
diabolic character of secondary personality as an escape from the
cogency of the facts.

Let me summarise the position here taken. I assume the following:
(1) That the discarnate spirit is in a state of active secondary per-
sonality when communicating, possibly at times resembling our hypnotic
condition in some of its incidents at least, and exhibiting various
degrees of clearness and confusion, merging now and then into delirium,
automatism, or complete syncope. This supposition explains both the
triviality and the fragmentary character of the messages, together
with the rapid movement of thought so evident in them. It also
explains easily the occurrence of automatisms. Telepathy between
the living cannot plead any excuse for its limitations in this way,
because the powers that have to be assumed for it would give it access
^^Miy and all incidents of the sitter's memories, important and trivial
(2) That Mrs. Piper is in a state of passive secondary per-
\ a subliminal condition which reflects or expresses automatically
-hts oommunicated to it. The evidence that this is her con-
, overwhelming. The supposition, then, explains easily

Digitized by Google

•oat c

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 28&

the limitations of the whole case, and also the fact that the dramatic
play of personality is more consistent with the spiritistic theory than
with that of her secondary personality. Mm Piper can hardly be in
an active and a passive state of secondary personality at the same
time. (3) That there is some process of communication between these
two conditions of secondary personality, whose modus operandi is not
yet known. It might be athanato-telepathic in its nature. The
evidence for this at present is insufficient. Or we might find an
analogy in the combination of phonetic and electrical laws in the
telephone, in as much as many of the confusions resemble phonetic
errors. Much can be explained by this supposition that may not be
due to the mental condition of the communicator. (See Appendix
VTI., pp. 643-645.)

There is one more difficulty to be considered tliat appears to have
some weight in respectable quarters. It is closely connected with the
problem of mistakes and confusions, and is comprehended in the same
general causes. It is usually raised by the same class that takes
offence at confusion. When some alleged communication is presented
as coming from a discarnate spirit the usual questions are: "Why
cannot a spirit be more explicit and definite 1 Why cannot it name
certain specific dates or events at once that will immediately identify
it ? Why so much confusion and loss of memory? Why so much
trouble about their names ? A spirit ought to be able to announce its
name at once and to know that it is imperative to do this at first.0
To many this represented disintegration of memory makes the whole
affiur appear very suspicious and creates a presumption for telepathy
which we can easily conceive as capricious, and which experience seems
to show is so.

This objection has in a large measure been answered in all that has
been said about mistakes and confusion. Bnt one aspect of it requires
special notice. It is the tendency of certain presumably intelligent
people to a priori decide what a given spirit ought to say to identify
itself. They argue from what they imagine they would do in the same
situation, without really knowing what such a situation is. Unless
the alleged spirit tells a coherent story and indulges in lofty sentiments
in clear language or exhibits some superhuman flights of inspiration,
great truths, etc., they turn up their noses and substitute sneers for
science. It is an objection that reflects more suspicion on the intelli
gence of the man who makes it than upon that of the alleged spirit.
It is strange that an agnostic who has abandoned orthodox dogma
on the one hand, and who has seen the terrible lesson in humility
which the doctrine of evolution has taught man in regard to his
origin against all the poetry and mythology of the past, shou1

Digitized by Google

286

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

cling to the theological assumption of some idyllic existence and
perfection for spirits in case they exist at all, and this without one
iota of evidence ! The fact is that scientifically or otherwise there is
no reason to suppose the existence of spirits of any kind, much less that
they represent anything much better than man is now. Every sane and.
intelligent man will take the evidence, good or bad, that he can get
and affirm or deny the existence of spirits before saying what they
ought to do as communicators or what estate they shall possess before
believing in them The chasm which is usually supposed to exist
between an embodied and a disembodied spirit has no excuse for its
existence except the imagination of unscientific men. After the
doctrine of evolution it is absurd to take any cross section of this
process and assume that the next stage of it will mark an immeasurable
distance and degree of progress. It is flatly against all the laws and
analogies of nature to do this, and absolutely inexcusable in the minds
of men who make the slightest profession of science. The existence
of spirits cannot be judged by any a priori ideas that appeal to our
aesthetic sense instead of the actual evidence, and the best way to
treat any objection to them on this assumption is to employ Gibbon's
sneers and to jeer a man out of court. In this, however, I am not
defending the insanities of this subject. I know that plenty of folly
may like to apologise for itself under cover of just this language. But
it is nevertheless a perfectly inexcusable illusion to indulge our
judgments in the assumption that, if spirits exist, they can talk the
language of poetry and inspiration. Tou may have an indulgent
public in your favor when you trust fancy in its pictures of preter-
natural intelligence and powers, but science will only stand by and
mark your faith. Evolution has destroyed the golden age of the
past, and spiritism, with a similar lesson of humility, may destroy
the illusory golden age of the future. From what we know of
the influence of hypnosis upon the consciousness of personal identity
and of physiological disturbances in the brain affecting the in-
tegrity of memory, so far from expecting any traces whatever of
personal identity, even if the soul survived as an " energy," we should
rather wonder that any intelligible message should come in the
attempt to communicate. Both from our knowledge of physiology and
from the necessity of intervening obstacles between incarnate and dis-
carnate existence, all the material conditions of our present mental
states and modes of communication being removed, we should rather
expect spirits, even when they retained the consciousness of personal
identity and possessed perfectly clear thought in their own natural
medium, only to squeak and gibber like poor Polly in their effort to
speak to us through such media as must be employed. The amazing
thing is that there should be either any survival at all, or any traces

Digitized by Google

xu.] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 287

of it possible. Hence there is nothing to do but to handle without
mercy every man who is so ignorant of the postulates of scientific
method and of the immense difficulties that must of necessity be
encountered in real communications from a transcendental world as to
ask that spirits should speak the language or exhibit the intelligence
of Plato, of Paul, or of Shakespere. When Pierre Janet could disturb
the ordinary functions of memory by producing anaesthesia through
hypnosis, or restore its functions by reproducing local sensibility, we
need not be surprised at the incoherences of communication, even if
there were no intervening obstacles to its existence. But add the
latter conditions to the former and the wonder is that the insanities of
spiritualism are not far worse than they are. Physiology also shows
in the localisation of brain functions that we have probably to
distinguish between the centres for the higher psychical activities and
the sensory-motor, putting the former in the prefrontal lobes and the
latter in the area about the fissure of Rolando. (Mills. The Nervous
System and Diseases, pp. 321-352.) The older view supposed that the
motor action of the Rolandic area was unaccompanied by consciousness
even of the sensory sort, so that sensations were associated with con-
sciousness or the higher mental activities in general. The memory of
both the sensory and intellectual processes would thus appear to
belong together. But the newer view seems to make the physio-
logical distinction between the locus of the intellectual and the
sensory coincide with the psychological distinction from time
immemorial between these two types of consciousness. Unless the
sensory experience were taken up by the intellectual process and
assimilated in its own way, it might be that any disturbance to
the physical conditions of sensation would affect the integrity of
recollection and recognition. Pierre Janet's experiments, showing an
intimate connection between amnesia and anaesthesia and at least
apparently coinciding with the natural implications of the latest
results in the study of the localisation of brain functions, should
throw some light on the possibilities of difficulty in the process of
communication independently of the merely physical and other
obstacles to it, even after the possibility of survival is granted. But
I cannot go into the complexities of this subject without taking more
time and space than this report will permit. I must rely upon the
reader's knowledge of the fact that its complexities are great enough to
justify the rebuke that science is entitled to administer to the pride
and confidence of those who expect communications to be clearer even
than in our telephone.

The diftjculty with proper names which is a stumbling block to
many persons in studying these experiments may have an explanation
in the ultimate solution of physiological problems and their perplexities

288

J. H. Hydop, PhJ).

[PAKT

as indicated above. But in the meantime there are some facts thafe
may explain it without any such appeal It will be observed by tho
student that there seems to be a natural distinction between familiar*
and unfamiliar terms in the communications. The phraseology of then
is comparatively narrow, and mistake or confusion often coincides with,
the introduction of a term that is not so common as other* (C/% phras»
"United Presbyterian," p. 492). The suspicion is confirmed also by
my experiments in artificial communication where the confusion and
error coincided most generally with the use of proper names and
unfamiliar terms (p. 624). If that be the case it would only
natural to encounter difficulty in them when communicating with,
incarnate beings from a transcendental world, even on the supposition
that the communicator was perfectly clear in his own mind, which ia
probably not the case. (See my discussion of this question in Harper**
Monthly Magazine, Vol. CIL, March, 1901, pp. 635-639. Also Th*
North American Review, Vol CLXXL, pp. 745-746.) There are other
facts that may contribute to the same conclusion. The psychological
complexities of memory, involving the various relations between intel-
lectual, sensory, and motor functions, the relation between different
ideas and the visualising and auralising process, the mental habits of
the individual in the use and recall of not only proper names, but also
unfamiliar words to say nothing of the difficulties of sending his ideas
through a physical organism which he could not be expected to use as his.
own — all these are factors in the explanation of the communications and
their contents on any theory whatsoever, and have to be reckoned with
in telepathy as much as in spiritism. In met the difficulties in connec-
tion with telepathy ought not to be so great as in the case of its rival
theory, as telepathy eliminates both the psychological problems con-
nected with the supposed spirit and those of a supposed transcendental
world and is left to contend only with the physiological and psychological
peculiarities of the sitter, in which case there ought to be no difference
in the alleged communications from different persons. But these
differences correspond with what we should expect in the known
differences between individuals, so that both the facts of confusion in
regard to proper names and unfamiliar terms and the manifold
increased difficulties over those assumed on the hypothesis of telepathy
are in favour of spiritism.

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 289

CHAPTER VI.
Conclusion.

It is apparent from all that has been said regarding telepathy and
the objections to spiritism that my predilections lie in the direction of
the latter theory, and I do not require to engage in any lengthy
restatement of the argument. I must simply explain what seems to
me to be the proper scientific attitude to be taken toward such
phenomena as are contained in this and similar records. The
sceptical temper is familiar to all of us, and is the prevailing condition
of general public opinion. To this there can be no objection so long
as it is intelligent and scientific. On the contrary I think we are to
congratulate ourselves on the tenacity and persistence of it, even in its
unintelligent form. But all this scepticism is not conscious of the
reason for its justification, and for various illegitimate reasons goes on
denouncing " spiritualism " from the conceptions of its follies in the
past. The history of " spiritualism " is undoubtedly a heavy incubus
for the scientific man to bear. But whatever that may be, the real
reason for scepticism, which is only a name for caution when it is not
a demand for libertinism, is the momentous character of the conclusion
and the tremendous consequences, philosophical, moral, religious, and
political, that must follow anything like scientific proof of a future life.
Faith no longer charms with her magic wand, except among those who
do not accept or appreciate scientific method, but whose flimsy standards
afford no criteria for defence against illusion and deception. Hence men
who have been saturated, consciously or unconsciously, with the scien-
tific spirit either give up the hereafter or insist that their belief shall
have other credentials than authority. Consequently, every institution
connected with social, moral and religious life must be profoundly
affected, whether for good or ill, by such an assurance as that of a
future life, the doubt about which has turned the aspirations of
modern civilisation from the moral to the economic ideal. The
consequences make it necessary that we should not be fooled in
so important a matter as this. We can then well afford to
follow scepticism to the utmost limits before yielding to spiritism, if
only for securing sufficiently rigid standards of truth and maintaining
the right of scientific method to determine the criteria of belief. Our
first duty is to science, and in this we must give the right of way to
scepticism, as the safest provision against illusion, until the audacity
of the theories necessary to support it carries us beyond all evidence
and rationality in the resistance to the alternative view. This is the

Digitized by

290

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[PABT

only legitimate reason for hesitation regarding spiritism, as the danger
of misinterpretation even in its genuine phenomena is so great that the
obligation to caution cannot be too stringent. The past reputation
and the false conceptions of both its facts and doctrines are not a
valid excuse for the evasion of phenomena that persist in thrusting
themselves upon the attention of science, but are simply warnings
against lowering the standards of truth and defence against illusion.
We may think that the future life as presumably indicated by the
evidence of spiritistic phenomena, even of the highest type, is poor
and meagre at its best, and that nothing ideal can come of its proof.
But however humiliating the facts may be — though they are infinitely
less so than the unscientific imagination supposes — science has no excuse
for evading the issue or following in the wake of popular delusions. It
is the hard sacrifice of human pride and vanity that stand more in the
way of a scientific and respectful consideration of these phenomena
than anything else. I do not admit that the general interpretation of
them is correct, when it repudiates the supposed life implied by them
as unideal and undesirable, since we are not in a position to demand
as yet any such construction of that life as may be necessary to
pronounce upon its character with assurance either way. Personal
identity is the first and only problem to attack at the outset. All others,
if soluble at all, are infinitely more complex and difficult to determine
Personal identity is hampered by nothing but the conditions of com-
munication, which, of course, are numerous enough. It can appeal to
a veritable past. But such a thing as the mode of life in the transcen-
dental world, in addition to the obstacles of communication, is
burdened by the want in us of any means for conceiving this life
intelligibly in terms of the experience upon which we usually rely for
the regulation of our lives. We should never forget that the language
employed may easily mislead us, and can be ultimately comprehended
only by the higher faculties trained on the abstraction of sensory ex-
perience, and in constructing from the consistency and diversity of the
data, by the higher intellectual processes, a general conception that is
both consistent with itself and with the non-sensory consciousness of
actual life, a conception that cannot be left to the unscientific
imagination to determine. Unfortunately even the professional
scientists too often accept the criteria of the plebs in this matter
where their energies ought to be employed in correcting it.

It is apparent from all this that I give my adhesion to the theory
that there is a future life and persistence of personal identity, that I
am willing to make it provisional upon the establishment, by the non-
believer in the supernormal of any kind, of sulficient telepathy, in
combination with the other necessary processes, to account for the
whole amazing result. All other questions I put out of court as not

Digitized by Google

xli.] Observations of Certain Traiice Phenomena. 291

relevant, especially as there is not one sentence in my record from which
I could even pretend to deduce a conception of what the life beyond
the grave is. I have kept my mind steadily and only on the question
whether some theory could not explain away the facts rather than
accept spiritism. But I think that every one without exception would
admit that, superficially at least, the phenomena represent a good
case for spiritism as a rational possibility. The fact of satisfying the
criterion for personal identity can hardly be disputed by anyone on
any theory whatever, whether of fraud, telepathy, or spiritism.
Hence, after excluding fraud, the only question is whether it is more
consistent with the data at hand to believe that they can be better
accounted for by telepathy with its necessary adjuncts than by the
survival of consciousness after death. I do not care how we conceive
this survival, whether in the form of the traditional "spirit," or in
the form of some centre of force either with or without the accom-
paniment of a " spiritual body," or again in the form of a continued
mode of the Absolute. With these questions I have nothing to do as
preliminary, but only as subsequent to the determination of personal
identity. I am satisfied if the evidence forces us in our rational
moods to tolerate the spiritistic theory as rationally possible and
respectable, as against stretching telepathy and its adjuncts into
infinity and omniscience.

The objections that I have presented have been considered only as
so much respect to the real difficulties of the problem, as it must appear
to both the casual reader and the student of abnormal phenomena who
cannot so intimately appreciate the pertinence of the facts as can the
sitter, and who justly clings to the rights of scepticism. These
difficulties, however, do not impress me as in reality so formidable as
they appear in the abstract. The only one that offers any resistance
worth serious attention is that which supposes a combination of
telepathy and secondary personality, but the force of even this objec-
tion arises from the extremely vague character of it, from certain
accidental and superficial resemblances between secondary consciousness
and the interplay of personality in the Piper case which the uncritical
student does not easily detect in its real nature, and from the failure
of the general statement of the argument to express definitely the vast
implications that it must logically accept when worked out to its
consequences in order to cover the facts. We merely show that
secondary personality explains a number of abnormal mental pheno-
mena which some unintelligent people considered spiritistic, and the
habit of dispelling their illusions by that phrase enables us still to use
it as a charm in the defence of scepticism, which in spite*of its rights
may easily adopt the tone of dogmatism. But if we once study the
Piper phenomena with due care and patience we shall discover in t1

292

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

difference between them and the ordinary facts of secondary conscious-
ness a significance in the dramatic interplay of different personalities
that reveals the most apparent realism in the whole performance.
But even telepathy and secondary personality do not exhaust the
suppositions that have to be made. The enormous deception involved
in so persistent and consistent a representation of the spiritistic reality
is of a nature to make one pause. A process assumed to be so
intelligent and acute as it must be to reproduce personal identity in
this manner must know whether it is deceiving or not. Nor can we
stop with the Piper case in making this supposition. This is only one
in many thousands of those that are continually producing phenomena
with an apparent spiritistic import. The only difference between them
and the case before us is that the latter more nearly satisfies the most
rigid demands of science. But all of them represent a constant
attempt to reproduce spiritistic phenomena, and if we are to use the
theory of unconscious deception we have to extend it to the subliminal
of all who have apparitions, mediumistic experiences, spontaneous
coincidences suggesting a spirit origin, planchette and other writing,
and possibly to the unconscious life of every one of us. Such a
supposition baffles all credibility, scientific or otherwise. But it is the
necessary consequence of the combination of telepathy and secondary
personality, and perhaps of telepathy alone, so that there will no
longer be any excuse for agnosticism holding out against a definite
characterisation of the Absolute as the Devil !

But I regard the contradictions of telepathy as not only breaking
it down, but also as disqualifying any and every form of secondary
personality for a theory to meet the case. We cannot give telepathy,
as we have known it experimentally, the power to meet the demands
of the dramatic play as displayed here without conceiving it so great
as to make its actual limitations and failures absurd, and in defect of
the achievement to successfully realise the functions of the infinite in
small as well as great things, there is no necessity for making any
appeal to secondary personality at all, to say nothing of the diffi-
culties against it without supposing that telepathy is its necessary
adjunct. But as I am not dealing at present with the problem of
secondary personality beyond the limits of my own record 1 shall not
argue against it further. The crucial test of spiritism, in this and all
other cases, must turn upon the question of telepathy to furnish the
data upon which any secondary consciousness has to work. Until it is
more fully studied we shall have to assume that secondary personality
is equal to the task of explaining the dramatic play of personality
and all the* non-evidential data, and base our conclusion upon the
insufficiency of telepathy to supply the objective facts in evidence of
personal identity. If telepathy involves a contradiction between the

Digitized byCjOOglC

xll] Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena. 293

powers necessary to account for the true facts and the limitations
displayed in its mistakes and confusions, we need not trouble ourselves
too much regarding the question of secondary personality, though the
unique and realistic interplay of personality in the various communi-
cators is a vantage ground for further support of the spiritistic theory.

In considering the telepathic hypothesis and the problem of
personal identity I have not treated all the facts as having the same
weight, even when they were true. I have often been at pains in my
notes to indicate just what truth, or approximate truth, was to be
found in a message. I did not do this because the fact was evidential,
but because I was concerned in showing that amid the confusion
present sufficient meaning might be discovered to prevent considering
the case as positively false. The facts upon which I had to rely for
primary conviction were such that, with or without confusion, their
pertinence was unmistakable. The approximate truths can only be
confirmatory of what might be expected in the way of difficulties in
communication. But the unity of consciousness exhibited both in the
facts that were verifiable and in the memory of certain incidents from
sitting to sitting in which the communicator had a special interest,
especially when we observe the distinctness with which different sitters
are kept apart in spite of the way they are sandwiched in for sittings,
and the synthetic complexity of the facts given, are considerations
that are too realistic to refuse spiritism some scientific charity. When
I look over the whole field of the phenomena and consider the
suppositions that must be made to escape spiritism, which not only
one aspect of the case, but every incidental feature of it strengthens,
such as the dramatic interplay of different personalities, the personal
traits of the communicator, the emotional tone that was natural to the
same, the proper appreciation of a situation or a question, and the
unity of consciousness displayed throughout, I see no reason except
the suspicions of my neighbours for withholding assent. But when I
am asked to admit the telepathy required to meet the case, the amazing
feats of memory involved in the medium's subliminal, the staggering
amount of deception demanded, and the perfect play of personality
presented, as capable of explaining the phenomena without spirits, I
roay s*Vi yes, if you choose to believe this against all scientific
precedents. But I am not ready to accept any such appeals to the
infinite, especially when we have only to extend the known laws of
consciousness to account for the facts instead of making such
enormous suppositions for fear of losing our social respectability.
Science is bankrupt when it has to appeal to the infinite. If
that infinite remained self-consistent there would be less difficulty in
tolerating its operations, but when it is a mixture of amazing successes
and absurd failures I am not likely to regard it with much veneration

Digitized byCjOOQlC

294

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

I appreciate materialism, as one who once saw no way out of it and
who had no personal interest in getting out of it. But this was when
the known limitations of consciousness and mental action generally
were correlated with the known limitations of the brain. Consciousness
in such a view is regarded as a functional activity of the organism and
its powers in all accepted physiology and psychology, presumably
rational, are confined to what it can receive and do on the spot. But
when it comes to giving the brain the power to spontaneously acquire,
and intelligently select, from any confused mass of memories at any
point of time and space in the whole universe of conscious and
unconscious mentation, and to do this instantly, reproducing perfectly
all the complex facts necessary to establish personal identity, I much
prefer to go outside that brain for my cause, as I am not accustomed
in the use of scientific method to apply the predicates of infinity and
omniscience to that organ; nor to any individual mind. I may be
mistaken, and if so I shall leave the correction to those who do not yet
believe in telepathy. My preference for the spiritistic theory after
facing the problems just indicated rests on a very simple basis, and it
is that I am not prepared to build any altars to Mrs. Piper's brain,
especially when I am asked to propitiate a diabolic divinity that I
should much prefer to see in the Lticretian intermwndia.

It is worth remarking in this contention that, in so far as explana-
tory considerations are concerned, spiritism has superior claims
scientifically to telepathy. Spiritism is an appeal to known causes,
the fundamental criterion of all scientific procedure ; telepathy is an
appeal to the unknown (Cf. Footnote, p. 128), We know just what an
individual consciousness can do when it exists. In supposing its con-
tinuance beyond death we are but extending a known cause beyond cer-
tain concomitants and limitations of its terrestrial manifestation. As a
phenomenon it is quite as intangible and invisible in its incarnate con-
ditions as it can be supposed to be in the discarnate. We know it
even terrestrially, in others, only by induction applied to certain
physical movements. Hence when we advance spiritism to explain the
Piper and similar phenomena we are but extending known causes
precisely as Newton extended terrestrial gravitation to explain
phenomena previously excluded from its operations. We are using
the same cause to explain the unity of certain facts that we used to
explain them when the person was living. It is telepathy then that
appeals to the unknown, so that the spiritistic hypothesis has one
scientific credential that telepathy has not.

In this conclusion, however, I am going to add a very important
consideration which is the mainspring of the whole discussion and
mentioned in various places only by implication, but which has not
been definitely formulated as I wish to do it now.

xu.]

Observations of Certain Trance Phenomena.

295

This discussion is not designed primarily to convince the reader
that the hypothesis which Dr. Hodgson and myself have adopted and
defended is the true one, that it is the only one to be tolerated in the
premises, but that it is entirely rational to suppose it possible, and that
it explains the phenomena when it is assumed. I offer this record as
some evidence for the spiritistic theory, but not as final proof of it. The
process of forming the personal conviction that it is the preferable one,
" the will to believe or disbelieve," must be left to the individual to
determine for himself. I grant to others the inalienable right to make
any suppositions they please in preference to the one defended here.
But if they intend them for any other purpose than to indicate the
conditions on which they are willing to be convinced of spiritism, if they
intend that their suppositions shall serve as an alternative hypothesis
to the one here advanced, I shall exact of them the production of the
same specific and experimental evidence for the truth and explanatory
power of their assumptions that we have presented in the Piper
phenomena, before they shall be entitled to scientific recognition. It
is all very well to insist on a high standard of evidence, and to demand
that certain conditions shall be satisfied before accepting the truth of
our hypothesis, or the fact that it is the only one possible, but you
cannot make your personal conversion to this truth a condition or
criterion of the explanatory power ascribed to the spiritistic theory.
The validity of our hypothesis is not conditioned by its power to make
converts to its truth, but only by its capacity for rationally explaining
the facts. Or, to put this in the obverse form, it is no refutation of
the spiritistic theory to say that you are not convinced of its truth, or to
demand that we eliminate the infinite from it in order to establish it.
The asserted alternate hypothesis must be supported by independent
facts that make spiritism either impossible or superfluous. If spiritism
were not actually explanatory of the facts this demand could not be
pressed, inasmuch as the present record could then be quoted as
evidence for telepathy. But the necessary admission that spiritism
will explain the case imposes upon the rival theory the obligation to
supply experimental evidence independently of this record to prove
that telepathy, with its adjuncts, can reproduce as perfectly the
personal identity of a living consciousness as Mrs. Piper produces that
of the deceased.

To repeat them, the main object here is not to convince the reader
that spiritism is the only hypothesis to be entertained, but that it is
rational to suppose it as one of the possible explanations. To me it is,
at present at least, decidedly the preferable one. At any rate, if it
has relevant facts representative of personal identity to depend upon
and suggesting an appeal to the infinite to escape spiritism, it become
a legitimate alternative and working hypothesis among all that mi

Digitized by

296

J. H. Hyalop, PhJ).

[part

be proposed. On this ground we shall be able to retort upon those
who make their personal conviction or conversion a criterion of the
explanatory power of spiritism, or who advance alternative suppositions
for explaining the phenomena, that they furnish experimental evidence
involving, not the fact of telepathy as we know or suppose it between
the living, but the kind of telepathy that will reproduce the unity of
consciousness and personal identity in conjunction with the proper
dramatic play of personality found in these records, but which would
not permit in any case a resort to discarnate spirits to account for it.
Until this evidence is forthcoming they can have no standing in a
scientific court. In the meantime I am content to have suggested
with Dr. Hodgson the nature and extent of the considerations which
must be experimentally proved in order to refute the hypothesis which
is here defended. When this result is effected it will be time to
reconsider the position here taken.

xll]

Appendices.

297

APPENDICES.

Preliminary Note.

The reader will naturally desire to know how my sittings were
appointed, and what was Mrs. Piper's previous knowledge of myself.
I had met Mrs. Piper in the early part of the year 1892 at the house
of Dr. Thaw in New York, at a meeting where some " mediumistic
trick " performances were illustrated. (See Proceedings S.P.R., Vol.
VIII., p. 307.) I did not make her acquaintance in any special way,
but was only introduced to her. Some time afterwards, I had the
latter part of a sitting with Mrs. Piper, entering the room and taking
my place as sitter while she was in trance. I talked with her, however,
after she came out, for some fifteen or twenty minutes. The following
is the contemporary record of my sitting.

May mh, 1892.

[Mr. J. H. Hyslop has fifteen minutes after Mr. Dow's sitting. See
Proceedings, S.P.R, Vol. XIII., p. 570.]

[Phinuit talking.]

How are you ? You're a pretty good fellow. [Something about folks at
h >:nc]

Who's John? [I admitted that my name was John, though not true.]
There's an old gentleman in the spirit belongs to him. Gentleman's father.
Your father. He wants to call John. Who's John? You have had some
difficulties. I want to help. He's all mixed up. Tell my son John I want
to help him out of it. He wants you to answer.

There's a lady in the body has some trouble with her head. Who is it
they call Mary ? Very closely connected. She has some trouble in her
bead. You needn't worry. She gets nervous. A bright woman. (These
incidents in the main are correct.] A little catarrhal trouble in the head.
What's the matter with her foot ?

A friend will help him financially as well as mentally. [Correct.] You
do something. I don't know how to illustrate it, as it's something to do
with the brain. [Touching head.] It has something to do with the develop-
ment of the brain and with thought. [Correct.] You keep on and you will
do well. You have developed it well. Sometimes you get all knotted up.
[The reference to my mental confusion contains a very interesting fact. For
a few weeks previous I had been reflecting on the relation between inhibition
and responsibility, and on the day preceding the sitting it suddenly occurred
to me that I could prove my point by the figures representing the relation
between association time and will time. I spent the afternoon looking u

Digitized byCjOOglC

298

J- H. Hyslop, PLD.

[part

the matter, but found myself disappointed in the result, although thoroughly
convinced that I was correct in the main principle. About a month later I
solved the problem. But Phinuit's statement cannot be made a prediction,
because, in connection with correctly indicating the recency of my thought
and the present confusion, which exactly described the condition of the
previous day, he merely indicated by the promise of success the confidence
I had that I was correct.]

[In my original note I neglected to say that 44 Mary " is the name of my
wife. (May 2nd, 1901.)— J.H.H.]

You're getting some very good ideas.

You're going to have a long holiday. Your lady is going with you. Over
a small body of water. [Correct.]

[A long, distinct story now told about a Fred Ellis, who years ago fell
into the water by a bridge, and was pulled out. Something about little
sacks. Sitter has no knowledge of such person.]

So far as I am aware, I never saw Mrs. Piper again or had any
communication with her till I went out to Arlington Heights on
December 23rd, 1898.

The sittings which form the subject of my present report were
arranged for in the following manner. I had written in August (1898)
to Miss Edmunds for them, but had concealed myself under the
pretence of wanting them for some one else. Of this I was very
careful, but Mrs. P. was absent on her vacation, and the plan fell
through. After Dr. Hodgson's return to this country I wrote to him
for sittings, and, in order not to allow Miss Edmunds (who had never
met me, and who had only corresponded with me) to know my plans,
I asked Dr. H. not to tell her. The letter was forwarded to him
unopened, he being at Bar Harbor at the time. In the course of
the correspondence arranging the sittings, a vague letter of mine to
him, misaddressed by myself to the office instead of to Dr. H.'s rooms,
gave a chance for Miss E. to guess the case, but only to guess it from
the handwriting, as the contents of the letter betrayed nothing. She
seems to have suspected it, but says she did not breathe my name to
any one.

I was also very careful not to tell any one in New York of my
intentions except my wife, who was counselled to keep quiet, and
also Professor Butler on Saturday, the 17th December, 1898, a letter
to him asking for trinkets from some deceased friend having been
mailed in the morning, if I remember rightly. No others had the
slightest information of my plans. The whole responsibility, there-
fore, for fraud in the case will fall upon myself, Dr. Hodgson and
Miss Edmunds. (See Note 1, p. 344.)

It will be interesting to remark, a propoa of fraud in the case, that
the first sitting is absolutely absurd upon the supposition. Much
could have been found out about me and communicated to Mrs. P. by

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendices.

299

Dr. Hodgson, either of my life in New York, or earlier in the West. If
I mistake not, there is a bibliographical dictionary with a pretty full
account of my career and work after entering college. I was not
even identified by the alleged spirits claiming me as son and brother,
and the apparent allusions to a brother and a sister who died long ago
represent events which I could not verify if I tried, except from a
rather meagre memory of my own, and from the testimony of two
aunts who know nothing of them except by hearsay.

There is, of course, no interest in all this except for the careful
reader and critic who may wish to know exactly the preceding facts
and the relation which the contents of the first sitting sustain to
them.

I append the statement of Dr. Hodgson.

I disclosed to no one the identity of Professor HyBlop, and I made arrange-
ments with the trance-personalities for his first series of sittings by referring
to him as a friend who wished to go four times. The following comprise all
the passages dealing with the matter.

[Rector writing.]

November 1898.
. . . (I have two friends, one of whom wishes to see you four times
in succession, and another who would probably desire to see you as often as
ten times. They are both seekers, but I cannot say how far you might find
them helpful or otherwise. Tou might say after the first time that they
must not come, but they have both been helpful to my work on the earthly
side, and if I could arrange for them I should be pleased for you to do what
you can.)

Friend, we will always do the right, and if they are worthy persons and
their friends sincere and worthy here, we will give them help and light.
(Yes.) Nothing could give us more happiness than to help all worthy
mortals. We desire of all things else to give and help all of God's children.

. . . [Arrangements for other sitters.]

(Then I think that Mrs. M. may wish two more days after that, but you
can arrange with her later. Then come the four times which I should
arrange with one of my friends whom you have not seen. He cannot easily
come at any other time.)

Well, friend, we cannot agree to this. We must have some day between
for restoration of the light for good results for him. (Yes. You
will . . .)

[Hand indicates by slight movements that I am to wait as it is listening
to invisible.]

Listen kindly. (Yes.)

We would prefer to meet him before we see Mrs. M. the last few times,
earlier, owing to the supply of light.

(He cannot come, except at those times, until about five weeks later.
Perhaps you would prefer that.)

We would, as we would have the best conditions for him (Yes. . . .)
and during the week of his presence we would have none other. (Very good).

Digitized by Google t

300

H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PAKT

. • . [Arrangements for other sitters.]
(. • . and you will make fresh arrangements after that later X
Yes, but we repeat that during the presence of thy " four times'1 friend
we must see no other.

(Yes. I understand. Later.) . . .

November 24th, 1898.

• , . (About Christmas time, just two days before and two days after
the Christmas day, would it be possible for you to see the " four times "
friend ?)

It will be well. (Then I can tell him so, as there is no other time for
him.) Yes + (Thank you.) We will arrange all here. . . .
How are you, H. . . . Anything I can do for you 1
(Yes. That George?)

Yes. I . . . He + asked me to speak and ask you whether I could
help you out a bit when your almighty friend arrives.

(Yes. I shall be very pleased to have your assistance.)

You may count on me, H. By Jove, I am glad to see you back, old
chap, I can tell you. . . .

December Uth, 1898.

• . . (And on the two immediately following days after her comes the
4 * four times " friend. ) It is well.

December lbth, 1898.

• . . There is to be one friend on the first day after the Sabbath, and
our friend C. on the second (Yes) and the third open (Yes) the fourth Mrs.
Z. (Yes) and thy four times friend thereafter (Yes.) . . .

December 2Ut, 1898.
. . . What hast thou to say about our meetings here for thy friend ?
(Do you mean the four times friend ?) Yes, we desire to send another
messenger and will do so then. . . . We have arranged for a meeting
with thy four times friend, the second day, also the third. (Yes.) . . .

— R. Hodgson.

The records which follow are complete, and no names have been
changed in matters concerning myself or my friends. It will be
noticed that, in several places references are made, in conversation
between the trance-personalities and Dr. Hodgson, to other sitters,
and in some of these cases initials only or pseudonyms are given,
instead of the real names.

The sittings, which usually lasted about two hours, from about
10.15 a, in. to about 12.15 p.m., were all held at Mrs. Piper's house in
Arlington Heights, Mass., about half an hour by train from Boston.

Every word said by Dr. Hodgson or myself at the sittings is
recorded t except1 that in one or two instances, noted where they

1 Except also such phrases as, ?'One moment, Rector," or "Wait a moment,
"w," liRcd by Dr. Hodgson when it was necessary to turn over the paper, when
siting wan beinff superposed, or when the hand was going over the edge of the

Digitized by Google

XLL]

Appendices.

301

occur, several words addressed to Dr. Hodgson were inaudible to
him, and also that I did not myself succeed in recording absolutely
every word spoken by myself during Dr. Hodgson's absences from the
room during the first sitting. The record of the writing by Mrs. P.'s
hand is also complete, except that I have only occasionally incorporated
the word " Yes " when written by the trance personalities in acknow-
ledgment of Dr. Hodgson's correct reading of the original writing.
When the "Yes " is a response to a question, however, it is, of course,
included. Dr. Hodgson recorded my remarks, which I tried to speak
very slowly, partly that the record of them should be complete, and
partly to facilitate the clear comprehension of my words by the trance-
personalities. Besides recording my remarks as I made them, Dr.
Hodgson also copied nearly all the writing by Mrs. P.'s hand as it was
written, and shortly after each sitting we completed the record by a
careful comparison with the original writing (see also statements on
p. 14, and footnote on p. 29).

There are some cases of curious spelling by the " machine " which
I have thought worth indicating in their proper places. I have
inserted these, where they occur, in square brackets immediately
after the words which they represent. For example, " lapse [laps] "
(p. 407). This means that the word in the original automatic writing
was written laps.

I should add perhaps that the punctuation is not restricted to that
of the original automatic writing, where there is a deficiency of it. The
marks in the original are practically confined to periods and interro-
gation points. A mark like a period seems to serve for the most part
indifferently for any pause. The repetitions of words or phrases in the
record were generally owing to our inability to decipher them at once
when they were written the first time. Repetitions due to other causes
will be noted when they occur unless their origin is obvious from the
text (as for example in the emotional repetitions of my father near the
beginning of the second sitting). Occasionally in the record of the
automatic writing the brackets { } are found. In the original those
brackets were made ( ).

The notes embodied in the records of the sittings are, except as
otherwise dated, contemporary with the sittings ; that is to say, they
were written on the days of the sittings or shortly afterwards. Some
additional notes made later will be found at the end of the first series of
sittings (p. 344), and others, made later still, at the end of the third
series. Page references to these later notes will be found in the course
of the records of the sittings. I have preserved the chronological order
to a large extent by this arrangement, and a comparison of my own
notes made at different times affords, in my opinion, an instructive
lesson concerning sundry difficulties not sufficiently appreciated by the

302

J. H. Hydop, PhD.

[part

ordinary inquirer into the psychological problems before us. It will
be seen, for example, in more than one striking instance, that whereas
in my early notes I condemn certain statements as inconsistent with
any origin from my father's mind, in my later notes, made after special
inquiries, it appeared that these statements were entirely relevant and
that they pointed distinctly to the identity of my father. I must warn
the student then expressly that he cannot estimate the value of any
incident in the detailed record of the sittings without consulting all
the notes concerning it, the later ones as well as the earlier ones. I
have taken special pains, in the appropriate places, to give all the
references needful to notes elsewhere. — J. H. Hyslop.

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix I.

303

APPENDIX I.

This Appendix contains the records of my four sittings on
December 23rd, 24th, 26th, and 27th, 1898, with contemporary notes,
and also additional notes embodying the results of later inquiries.

Dr. Hodgson and myself arrived at Mrs. P.'s about 10 o'clock a.m.
I had provided myself with a cloth mask, covering the whole face,
such as is used at mask balls. This I put on before leaving the coach
in which we rode from the station. Under this concealment I went to
the door and into the house, upstairs, where we met Mrs. P. in her
room. I was introduced to her as Mr. Smith. I merely bowed,
without uttering a sound, and did not speak a word until after she
had gone into the trance.

These precautions were taken owing to my having met Mrs. Piper
in 1892, as described above (p. 297), in consequence of which it might
he said that she had a chance to recognise me, though at that time I
had no beard, while I now wear one. But the mask effectually
concealed my face, so that no recognition was possible under any
ordinary circumstances.

I had, under the mask, a good opportunity to study Mrs. P.'s
reception of me. As I was introduced she caught sight of the mask,
and, seeing its meaning, broke out into a laugh at Dr. Hodgson, and
remarked that only once before had such concealment been used. The
laugh and manner were apparently genuine, though she could have
seen us from the window coming into the house from the coach. I
could not detect any simulation in the laugh or manner. They bore
every external trace of sincerity.

Presently, after dusting some articles in the room, Mrs. P. sat
down upon her chair for the trance. Pillows had been placed in front
of her for her head to lie upon while entranced. I sat some three or
four feet away where I could closely watch the trance coming on. She
sat quiet and no indications of the trance occurred for some time, say
three or five minutes. Then I noticed a few slight jerks of the head, and
«ome twitching of the right eyebrow, Mrs. P. picking the while at her
finger nails. Both stopped in a few moments, and no trace of the
trance was to be remarked. Mrs. P. then leaned forward upon the

Sitting I.— December 23rd, 1898.
Introduction.

304

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PABT

pillows, closed her eyes, rubbed them, with her face somewhat flashed
for a few moments, then opened her eyes, slightly straightened up,
used her handkerchief, returned to picking her finger nails, and
assumed a slightly fixed gaze. I then noted a gradually changing
expression in her face. It had lost its flush, and there was some-
thing of a pallor in it, though very slight and only noticeable perhaps
in contrast with the previous flush. But the most notable change
in the expression was one that is hard to describe. The whole mus-
cular appearance of it was less drawn than when I was introduced
to her, and seemed fuller and more flabby, if that word can be used.
Her mouth, also, was a little drawn on one side, and the gaze became
more fixed. Her mouth soon opened and she passed easily without
a struggle into the trance, with something of the appearance of a
faint.

I then changed my position behind and to the right of her so that
I could watch and read the writing, not a word being said by myself in
the meanwhile. Nor was I at this or at any time during the trance
either in contact with her or where she could see me, her whole face
being turned away from me and buried in the pillows. Sitting there
behind and to the right of her, I soon noticed the muscles on the hand
at the third finger begin to twitch. Soon the whole hand began to
shake and then reached out and down to write. A. pencil was placed
in her hand, and the twitching continued for a few moments, and the
hand again raised itself in the air, but immediately lowered itself to
write.— J. H. H. (See Note 2, p. 346.)

Rector: (R. H. : Good morning, Rector.) Good morrow friend of
earth. We see old friend and we welcome thee here. We see all that thou
hast done since we met thee last, and we are pleased with all that is coining
to thee. Didst thou receive our messages ? We know it will be better for
thee as we have told thee before.

(R. H. : Yes. I have not yet seen the last visitor to you, but will see her
this evening. And I have heard from Mrs. C. They wish me to be present
with them to-morrow morning, but I said that I should probably have to be
here.)

We think not. We will answer thee after we have finished with the
. . the other . . other matters, and Ned has finished.
(R. H. : Who has finished ?)
Ed . . (R. H. : Oh, that other word is Ned!)

Yes. Then we will give our answer. We wish to. carry out our arrange-
ments with • • .

(S. to R. H. : Can't read a word of it.)
(R. H. : Yes. I understand. Yea)

Record of Sitting, December 23rd, 1898.

S. and R. H.

[Rector writes.]

XLI.]

Appendix I.

305

Mrs. Z. and then we . . answer for thee here. [The word answer
apparently superposed on the we. I have observed other similar eases, where
the intention evidently was to obliterate the previous word. — R.H.]

Here oomes George . . . here comes George. After we have
finished there. (R. H. : Yes, I understand.)

He is smiling and holds his hands in greeting to thoe . . . greeting.

Yes. All is as I told you and will ever be. What did you think when
you got my message ? All is well.

Now we have much to say to another light present.

We will soon leave George to answer for thee.

[Cross in air.] [repeated after listening.] 1

It is as we would have it. And now friend we leave [?] thee to . .
Going. Good-bye. Rector.

How are you, old chap ? (R H. : First rate, George.) I want to see who
has come to greet me here. Long time since 1 have seen you.
But every thing is as I saw it would be.

(R. H. : Yes. Are you talking to me, George?) Yes. (R. H. : Yes,
it is.)

Yes. I have a great deal more to do for you yet.

I. S. D. wished to send Prudens, but could not make him dear. (I
understand.)

We are going to speak presently to this other light. Hear [superposed
on other] hear. I will go to New York and see if I can find his books for
him. He left them there. I mean they are in the library, and I will direct
him where to find them. I wish Carlie . .

(S.: Can't read that.)

Charlie bad not been in such haste. ... He could have found out
all about them from me . . them from me. Now here is a lady, [recorded
by R. H. and probably read by him aloud at the time as " there is a lady "]
present who desires to speak. Will you leave me for a moment, Hodgson,
and return soon ? I wish to bring Prudens to take my place, if possible.
Hear.

(R. H. : All right. I go.)
Hear. Return presently . . .
[R. H. goes out.] [S. noted his questions at the time.]
and let me see if I can bring Prudens, and I will stand up and help
him out. (I can't read it.)

Try and hear us . . . hear us. (I can't read it.)
Try and hear us.

And I will bring [probably read aloud by J. H. H. as try] and make you
understand me.

(Yes, I understand.)

I wish to bring your friends to you.

(Is any friend of mine there ?)

1 Whenever the word " listening " is used in the record after the manner
indicated here it means that the hand appears to be listening to what a "spirit " is
saying. (See Procetdingi, VoL XIII., p. 399.)

[G. P. writes.]

306

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[eabt

Tea, and he wishes to speak to you at once. There are two. And one is a
lady, and she belongs to you and she wishes me to speak to you for her. I
want to reach you now. Do not hear me. I wish you to see her.

[R. H. returns.]

I must try and speak as clearly as possible to him, Hodgson. I will do
my best to speak plainly.
(R. H. : Yes. Good.)

I wished to help this gentleman to find his friend on earth. I wish he
could understand me clearly. Will you not try, kind friend, to hear me ?

We have a great deal to do for you and will if you will only try to hear us.
(R. H. : George, shall 1 go out again, and you try to write slowly and
clearly so that he may be able to read ?)

I will try and do my very best to make myself understood by him.
(R. H. : Yes. Can you write still more slowly ?)

I will try but I am not alone, remember that, because there are others
talking to me here, and I am anxious to help them and they are anxious to
reach him, so I will do the best I can. I . . .

(R. H. : George, I can read this all right, but my friend here cannot.)

Well I will try again. You know how anxious I am to do all I can for

even now, Hodgson. Although I am far away I will still do my very
best in all cases for you.

[Meanwhile the writing has become slower and more legible.]
(R. H. : Well, George . . . )
God knows if there is any thing that I can do I will.
(R. H. : George, I will go out again, and he will make another attempt
to read.)

I am sure we will understand each other soon.
(S. : I can't read all of it.)

And if I can I can do so much better because I can prevent confusion
(S. : All right) if I can only bring his friends without yours, H.
[R. H. goes out.]

(Can you find any friend of mine ?)

Yes, I do find a little girl who passed . . .

(Does she tell you her name ?)

I will ask her soon. (I don't read.)

I will ask her presently and . . and she wishes to find you . . .
she wishes to find you, and she is here with me now.

(What is last word ? ) with me now. (Does she tell you her name i )
Not yet. No you . . . not yet but she will. Do not hurry her. She
is here with a lady and they both belong to you . . belong to you, and
the lady sees her gloves. [No meaning in the reference to the gloves. —
J. H. H.] [No gloves taken to sitting.]

(Who is this lady?)

Do you remember anything about Margaret ?

(Last word I do not understand.) [By this remark I meant that I did
not decipher the word Margaret —J. H. H.] \l think I had an older sister

(S. : Yes.)

you.

(S. : Yes. I believe it.)

xu.]

Appendix I.

307

by this name who died when I was two years old.— J. H. H.] [See Note 5,
p. 349.]

She . . She is calling MOther. I am she and I see Lillie is . . is
[No meaning.— J. H. H.] [See Note 5, p. 349 and p. 331.]

(What is the last word ?) Is with me here, dear little thing. Do you
know who I am ? Giv . . Give me ray gloves. (I do not understand last
word.) Give me my gloves. Will will speak. Speak. I want you to give me
my gloves. (Yes. Have you seen any one else ? ) Yes I have and she is also
with me . . . and with me . . . I am with . . . I am speaking
of Henry [f). [See p. 22.]

(What is the last sentence ?) I am with her. (With whom ?) Yes I
have A ... A * * * [undec., possibly either Alice or Annie.]

(Is it Alice ?) Alice. (Alice who ?) I do not say Alice, I say Annie.

[Not deciphered by S.] [See Notes 3, p. 347 and 5, p. 349.]

(Have you seen any one else ?) Do you remember anything about your
Brother? (Who is the gentleman ?) I say Brother. I am your ... I
know I am, and . . .

(When did you pass out ?)

When did I pass out . . . only a long time ago.
(Any other member of the family ?)

Yes, two. I have seen Annie, and mother, and Charles, and Henry.
(Is this Charles Henry ?) No. Charles. (Did he pass out before you ?)
Did he . . . No. I do not hear, did you say before ?
[No note of what S. said here.]

Yes, he did. Some time before. And when I came he helped me.
[See Note 18, p. 361.]

[I had a brother Charles and a sister Annie who died within twelve days
of each other about 1865. Margaret, if I am right in the name, died in
1856 or 1858, two or four years old, too young to give any meaning to these
statements except the correct coincidence in the names. The refusal to
accept my suggestion here of the name " Charles Henry" is correct.] [See
Note 5, p. 349, and also p. 22.]

(Can you say with what you passed out ?)

Oh, yes, perfectly. Do you remember I passed out rather suddenly at
last? Hear— do you hear ? (Yes. I heard.)

I had trouble with my head [?] and it affected my heart. [Cf. pp. 327-
329.] Do you remember the trouble I had with my head ? Speak.

(Have you seen brother George ?)

I spoke of him before. Will you tell me if you understand me now f
Do you hear me ? (I do not understand.) I say give me my hat. [Cf. p.
313, and Note 6, p. 350, Note 18, p. 362.] [No hat taken to sitting. I
presented an accordion. Hand felt it.— J. H. H.] 1

1 The use of articles worn or handled by the deceased when living is said to " hold
them " in the act of communicating. I do not speculate as to what this means or
why it should be done. We have dimply found by experience that it is best to
conform to this requirement and that the result* are in some way affected by the
" influence " of such articles, whether their use appears rational according to our
preconceived notions of the case or not. (Compare Proceedings Vol. VIII., pp. 18-r

and 5&-57.)

308

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

This was not mine but his. It belonged to George. [Not true. —
J. H.H.]

Not . . . and the little girl ... I say do you hear me ?
(It belonged to some one else.)

It belonged to me . . . I say it belonged to * * [undec. any
better? my father?] who is here. Charles.
(Is he with you ?)

Yes. I can just hear and that is all.
[S. asks if B. H. shall return.]
For a moment. [S. calls R H.]

I used to play on this. [Possibly correct, but it can have no significance,
oecause my fingers slipped as I carried it to the table, and the bellows fell,
making a musical tone, which could be a clue to Mrs. P.'s subliminal. (About
January 10th or 12th, 1899). —J. H. H.]

(Who used it ?) I am sure of it. I know we are brothers, and I know
where . . where I am. I can hear you scarcely, and that is all.

You will have to have patience with me, friend, for there are three
persons here who are all speaking to me at one . . at once. One is calling
mother, and the other is calling Charles, and the other is calling for you.

(R. H. : Shall I stay now ?)

Better for a while until I see if I can keep the lady clear.
(R. H. to S. : Let the drifting incoherence end first.)
I want very much to reach my son, and I know I see some one who
rcKombled hira. I have four sons. Two are here, and I have his wife with

me also.

(S, : That's all wrong.) [Five sons and one daughter living ; two
dang litem and one son dead, and one dead whose sex I do not know. My
wifts still living,— J, H. H.]

I do not hear all she m aaying, but I will very soon.

7efc Where is Albert ? (S. : Albert 7)

H. : Is that Albert ?) [Do not know any Albert or Alfred.]

Sounds Hkc Alfred. It is not quite right yet, but will be.

Do you remember anything about Mr. Morse ?

(S. : No, I du not.)

He used to know father well, and he has a sister with [with superposed
♦m ridtr} Bister with me,

(H. to R, H. : Doesn't mean anything to me. There's nothing with any
possibility in the whole thing except Charles.)

And I am sure of him. I say I wish you to hear me. Do not try if you
uannot. The name i* Walter . . name he Walter, and he is still in the
body.

No, It means nothing.)
call iny it now.
lit, in culling it, George ?)
f his brother. Of course, I do not actually know, only what
] I' - seems very anxious to reach this friend in the body,
ill be clear soon as Rector is helping him. Won't you
r me now, friend ?

Digitized by

Google

XLI.]

Appendix I.

309

Do, if possible, because it is difficult for me to keep any one out who
ought not to speak now.

Hodgson, it is too bad ; but I cannot half hear when you are present.
(R. H. : Very good. I will go out.)

Will you kindly return as soon as I can see what I can do with these two
spirits present ?
[R. H. goes out]

I cannot keep the lady from talking, neither can I keep the young man
who claims to be your brother. Come here and listen. Do you remember
anything about . . . Will you kindly help me to keep his thoughts
clear ? (I do not understand). Tour Brother. I say do you know who
Edwards is? (No.) [Francis Edwin is the name of my youngest brother,
though if the middle name was ever referred to at all it was often called
Edward by my father. Edwin and Edward were interchangeable to him.
(November 3rd, 1899).— J. H. H.] But you must. (I can't read it).

But you do know me, and do you remember the fever ? I had a fever.
(What fever f) I had a fever, and they said it was Typhoid. (I do not get
the last sentence.) They said I had Ty . . . Typhoid. Cannot you
understand? (Not yet). [Charles died of scarlet fever and measles. —
J. H. H.] My throat. My throat. I had a very bad throat, and it
took me over here. [See Note 5, p. 349]. (Tes). Because the membrane
formed in my throat. And I did not know any one (Yes. Right.) before I
left my body.

[The word " here " in the original automatic writing, in the phrase " took
me over here," was written "there " by Dr. Hodgson in his copy made at
the sitting, and was probably due to a kind of metathesis of my brother's
point of view to his own. The automatic writing was perfectly clear and
unmistakable (April 14th, 1900).— J. H. H.]

(Do you know any one now ?)

I am coming closer. Tes, I am coming nearer to you, and in a little
while you shall know all about us all. I think [thingk] I have been here a
good many years, and I do not know all of my . . .

(Have you seen mother ?) She is here with me. She is all right. She
came here after I did. (Tes. Right.) And I saw her coming. And she
could not eat. [Mother died after Charles. Statement about her not being
able to eat is unverifiable (May 1st, 1901).— J. H. H.]

(Have you seen any one else besides mother ?)

Tes, I have. Do you remember she had a sister who was in the body
when I . . I passed out? (Tes. Right) But she came here too, and she
came after mother. [Correct (November 3rd, 1899).— J. H. H.] (Who is it?)
[See Note 5, p. 349.]

Then there is another one who is here and she is nearer to you than all
the rest of us, and she will soon be able to tell you all you would care to
know. And [written on top of filled sheet] and she is so glad to see you here,
but she cannot speak as she will in a little while. [See Note 5, p. 349.]
Where is Will? (Is that Willie ?) Yes. (He is out West.) [Correct name
of living brother.— J. H. H.]

Tou do not know . . . give him our love. And in a little while he
will be with us. (Tes.) He has a . . . some time yet I want you t

uio

J. U. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

know who I am bringing to you. (Who is it ?) She cannot leave until she
is clear and can tell you what she has on her mind.

Do you know she came here last ? Now do you know ? (Yes.)

Do you remember who you used to call Ell . . el [?] . . . not dis-
tinct . . . Where is Robertson ? (What name ?) Robertson. (Robert ?)
Yes. (Have you seen him ?) I have not lately. Did you ask me if I had
seen him ? (Yes.) No, I have not.

[Brother Robert still living.— J. H. H.] [0/. pp. 314, 317, 332.]

(Have you seen any one else who died lately ?)

Yes. I am trying to help her to come to you. Do you hear ? (Yes.)
And I will tell her you are . . .
[See Note 19, p. 362]

(Time of year passed out ?) I want to tell you everything I can remember.
I think it was winter (Right) because I remember seeing it snow. [Right.]
(Where was I ?)

I think you were not with me. I do not think I saw you at all before I
came here. [If this refers to the time of his death it is true. It had
snowed the day of his death or the day before. I was sent to a neighbour
on an errand on the day of his death and lingered too long, and when I
returned, I was shocked by my mother's telling me that my brother Charles
had died. I remember distinctly that the ground was covered with snow as
I went on this errand —J. H. H.] [Cf. pp. 24, 26.]

(Have you seen mother ? )

Oh, yes. She says it is better so. If she . . i . . had not come
soon it would have been worse. Do you hear me ? Well, what did you
mean by asking for George.

(I wanted to know if you remembered George.) [Cf. p. 307.]

Yes, but George is here. I say George is not here.

(Do you say George is not here ? )

I say no, he is not, and I could not understand why you asked me if he
was here. Neither is he coming for a while yet. Ho is well and doing well
and so be it. [Correct about George.— J. H. H.] [The reader should re-
member that the amanuensis here is G. P., a person whose first name was
actually George, and the omission of the "not " in the first statement may
have been due to a misapprehension on his part as to the George meant in
my question. (April 19th, 1900).— J. H. H.]

I think you will remember Corrie ? (No, I do not.) No wait a moment.
(Is it Mary ?) I say it is, and she was father's sister. [See Note 5, p. 349.]
(I do not understand.) [i.e., couldn't read.]

Cannot you hear me ? Elizabeth. (' 4 Elizabeth " ?) Yes. Mary. Do
y [on top of filled sheet] do you not remember ? Listen. She was your mother's
sister. Do you hear? (Not quite.) She was our aunt. She is our aunt.
[See Note 5, p. 349.] (What aunt?) * * [Undec., probably Allen or
Ellen.] And she will come to you again when I get stronger . . stronger.
I will . . . [Allan could have one possible meaning (Cf. p. 422) and
Ellen two. (April 20th, 1900).— J. H. H.]

[R. H. returned a short time before this point and arranged sheets, etc. ,
on other side of room preparing for departure, while S. continued to follow
the writing.]

XLI.]

Appendix I.

311

(R. H. : George, we shall have to «o directly. This gentleman is coming
again to-morrow.)

Wait until I get + to take away this young man . . . young man.

(R. H. : All right.)

[S. rises and moves across the room.]

He walked right in front of him. Why does he do this ?

(R. H. to S. : Better keep still. Yes.)

I will speak to you again and tell you all about the rest whom 1 . .
whom I have seen over here since 1 left so many years ago. Good-bye.
They are taking me away.

Hodgson, I hope to get the lady clear again . . clear. (R. H. : Good.)
Good-bye, H. (R. H. : Good-bye, old chap.) Come . . Come and meet
us when you can.

[Rector writes.]
(R. H. : Shall I come with this gentleman to morrow ?)
Rector. Have Prudens clear soon. How can we manage the light
without thee ?

(R. H. : I think it will be necessary for me to accompany him.)

+ He says so and dues not think that thou canst complete thy work
without coming. [The cross is usually the symbol for Imperator.]

The light is failing — failing. Come to us. Fail us not, oh friend.
Thou knowest not our necessities. R.

(R. H. : I will be here to-morrow.)

+ All is well. May God be with thee both. + j j

[When G. P. left, Rector came in with a sudden jerk of the hand,
and then the writing became calm as usual. As soon as he was
through, Mrs. P. began to come out of the trance. First I noticed
much twitching of the hand and arm, followed by a noise like snoring.
Presently the head was raised, the mouth opened, and the eyelids very
slightly raised. She remained in this condition for a few moments,
the tongue rolling about in the mouth and slightly protruding. Then
this was followed by a decided gaze with the eyes set looking into
space, and presently she looked about following Dr. Hodgson with a
wild stare ; said " Oh ! dear me," and fixed a wild fierce gaze on me.
I at once left the room for fear of frightening her with my mask as
she came out.

As I read over the sitting carefully I found several places in which
I had wholly misunderstood the connection and drift of it. In some
places I had supposed that it was " Charles that was talking with
me, but I find that it must have been " Margaret." But her death
somewhere between or about my first and second year makes the whole
thing ludicrous. Nevertheless the allusion to mother, Annie and
Charles, in the same breath, is interesting as a coincidence. But then
there is no reason for 44 mother " alluding to her gloves. Then when

Digitized by

812

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

the person communicating answered my question whether " he passed
out before you ?" with a " yes," this would be wrong if it referred to
" Charles, " but would have been right if the communicator were
" mother," as I thought it was at the sitting. " Margaret " (f ) and
my twin sister died somewhere about 1856 or 1858, brother Charles
and sister Annie about 1865, and mother in 1869. This right relation
came out later, as the report shows.

I noticed during the sitting the curious distinctness and evidence
of the change from one personality to another. This is almost inde-
scribable, but it was marked in the tone of language, except at the
close, where the change from G. P. to Rector was marked by a mus-
cular convulsion in Mrs. P.'s arm. — J. H, H.]

[Later study shows upon how much misunderstanding some
features of this note are based. (March 10th, 1900.)— J. H. H.] [Cf.
Note 18, p. 361 and pp. 21-16.]

Sitting II.— December 2ith, 1898.
Introduction.

The entrance into the trance was marked by much the same
symptoms as the day before. But this time it was the left hand that
showed the twitching, and not the right, until the trance came on.
There was some snoring also this time, as there was not before. After
her head had fallen upon the pillows, and was arranged by Dr.
Hodgson so that she could breathe easily, soon there appeared the
twitching of the fingers and muscles which betokened the preparation
for writing, and the arm began to try to move itself into position for
this work, but Dr. Hodgson assisted it into place, at the same time
putting a pencil between the fingers, when the writing began. — J. H. H.

Record of Sitting, December 2Uh, 1898.
[Rector writes.]

[Cross in air.]

Rector : (R. H. : Good morning.)

Good morrow, friends of earth. We greet thee again, and thou art wel-
come here. . . welcome. We bring Prudens and more light will be
given. All is well. Fear not. Thy friend is [in] good hands, and all will
be as we would have it. We bring him now. Good morrow, friends, all is
well and will be . . . Prudens.

(R. H. : Good day.)

I will take this work and go on with all that is good, and unless it be I
go at once. P

Digitized by

Ajrpendix I.

313

[Difficulty in deciphering, hence the repetitions.]

. . on with it . . and . . all that is good . . and go on
with all that is good. And unless it be we go.

We ask thee to follow . . we ask thee to follow us carefully and
hear what we have to say. . . What

[Excitement, followed by calm.]

Peace +

Yes. I will. [To invisible.]1

James, James Speak, James.

(R. H. to S. : Say something.)

(S. : Yes.)

James, speak to me.

(S. : I am glad to see you.)

James, James. Speak to me. James. James. [Cf. pp. 324, 28.]
(R. H. to S. : Go on, say something.)
(S. : Good morning. Good morning. Tell all you wish.)
James, speak to me.

(R. H. to S. : Tell him to unburden his mind and remarks like that.)
I am not ill. Oh, oh, I want you so much.

I want you. I want everything, James. I want everything. I want
everything. I want to see you. (S. : Yes, James is here.)

I want to see you. I want to tell you everything. I want you to hear
me. I am not very near just now . . just now, but I am coming, coming.
I see you. I see your spirit in the body. They tell me I will soon be all
right and able to help you. Oh, I did not quite know how it would be here.
[Pause.]

Give me my hat and let me go. [See p. 307 and Note 6, p. 353.]
I will not leave you till I tell you all I wish.
Where is Willie [q (R. H. : Is that Willie ?)
(S. : Is that Willie f) Where is Willie ?

1 heard you, James, and I am glad. I heard you say something. What
was it!

(S. : Did you ask for Willie ?)

Yes, I did. Is he all right, James, is he, is he ?

(S. : He is all right.)

Is he coming soon. Yes, I know it.

Where are ... do not work too hard . . . work I say, work I
say, I say work. [Father was always giving me this advice. Of. p. 430.
(January 6th, 1900.)— J. H. H.]

I want my head clear. I feel chocked — I chocked. I am chocking.
[Interpreted as ihockiiuj.] I am choking.

I am going. Will come back soon.

Is James well ? (S. : Yes. James is well, and is here.)

Yes, I know it. I will ask you if you remember brother Charles.

(R. H. : Is that brother Charles ?)

1 The expression "To spirit," or "To invisible, " indicates that the passage to
which it is attached was apparently addressed to some " spirit." At such points the
hand of Mrs. Piper usually stretched itself out into spaoe as if receiving or deliver-
ing a communication to some invisible presence. — J. H. H.

Digitized by Google

314

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

I say yes. I do not want to be put out, because I can help the rest to
come. Don't send me away. Don't. I want to tell you about father. He
sends back word that he is all right. Will you . . . Back [re- written,
as it was not deciphered above] and glad of it.

Can hear perfectly now. Do you know what I mean and what I [am]
trying to tell you ?

(S. : Yes, yes. I know perfectly.)

He says it is no use trying to think anything is not for . . for the
best, because it is, everything. And we are all here together.

(R. H. to S. : Say something.)

(S. :Yes. I'm glad to hear it. Tell all. Tell all.)

I will. Don't worry, and you shall hear from every one of us, and
after we find you we will all help you, and bring better and clearer
thought to you.

I am . . . listen friend. Have patience with me. + [Imperator]
is here, and we will keep them quite calm.

The trouble you had with your head a short time ago will not return.
Do you remember it ?

(S. : No, I do not distinctly remember it.)

Tired

(S. : Oh yes, I remember that.)
out.

[This phrase " tired out " was quite natural to father, and was probably
used by myself in earlier life. But I should have said " worn out," and there
were frequent occasions during the last two years when I uttered it. It is
possible that I have sometimes used his phrase, but I remember frequently
usiug 4 4 worn out " to my wife. However, I have no reason to interpret
it as referring to this fact. The main point is to remark that the phrase was
one of father's. Assuming that he was really the alleged communicator it
could as well allude to my condition when I last visited him in [January or
February, 1895] 1894, I believe. I was very tired then, and took down a
few days after I left him with a long and severe illness. Its relevancy to
this visit and the exhausted condition in which I was is perhaps indicated
by the allusion to "lectures" later. I had lectured in Indianapolis on
Psychical Research and visited him on this trip. He was much interested
in what I told him about it, and showed a more receptive mind regarding it,
though of an extremely orthodox belief, than I expected to find in him.
His later allusion also to his belief that we might get some knowledge of
another life fits in with this notion.

I do not say that the phrase ** tired out " has any such certain meaning
as is implied in this account. It is simply consistent with it, and is one of
those little touches of personal vraUemblance of which this sitting is full. —

(S. : Otti is that word ? tired out ?) (R. H. : Yes, I think so.)
We do not intend it shall haven [?] happen again, and we know.
What is it? E * * [undec.] Elsie El . . is . . Elsie. (S. :
I don't know that name.) Eliza . . Eliza . . (S. : Are you calling
Eliza?) Yes. (S. : Yes, I understand.)
I am. James.

J. H. H.]

XU.J

Appendix I.

315

[This allusion to 44 Eliza " is very interesting. It intimates clearly what
I was carious to know, and regards events that have happened since I
arranged for the sittings.— J. H. H.] [My uncle had died three weeks
previous to the sittings. Eliza is the name of his wife (April 24th, 1901).
—J. H. H.]

(S. : Yes, what do you wish to say to her ?)

Give my love. (S. : Yes, I will.) And tell her not to get discouraged.
(R. H. : Last word, Rector, please 1) 1 think he says discouraged. (R. H. :
Deranged?) [Dissent.] (* * Discouraged.") [Assent.] She will be better
soon. UD.1

(S. : Yes. I understand.)

I often see her despairing. . . despairing. [See Note 20, p. 363.] Where
is she now, James ? I will go there soon.

(S. : She is at home. Do you know why she grieves ?)

[Hand points towards invisible.]

(S. : Do you know why Eliza grieves ?)

Yes, because I left her. But I really did not leave her.

I wish I could you all I would like . . . tell you ...('* tell
you all.") I would . . . you would not think I had left entirely. I
feel much better now. She thought she saw me in her sleep, f See Note 20,
p. 363.] I was there. Father, father, father . . . going.

[Pause. Cross in air.] . . . going . . . going ... be
back soon.

(R. H. to S. : They cannot stay long at a time, but must get away from
the machine to recover and then return. Yerstehen ?) (S. : Yeh.)

Oh, if you only knew how glad I am to see you, you would be glad,
because it will be a help to me to go on in my life and keep her from feeling
any pain.

(S. : Yes, tell all you can.)

Will you comfort her ? She ought not to be lonely. [See Note 20,

I am trusting [thinking ?] to Him to help me to speak plainly.
(S. : Yes, I will comfort her.)

I am glad, so glad. Are you still here ? I will look and see. I have not
been here very long [true. — J. H. H.] and yet . . . [much difficulty in
deciphering next sentence, and hence the repetitions.]

I would not return for all I ever owned, music, flowers, walks, drives,
pleasures . . . pleasures of all kinds, but . . . ever owned, he
says, music, or walks, drives . . . walks, drives . . . walks . . .
walks, drives, or . . . kinds [?], books and everything. I do remember all
here so well. What can I do to help you all to know I live still ? [See
Note 20, p. 363.]

(S. : Tell me all you can of your life here on earth. )

1 The symbol ** U. D." has been adopted by the trance personalities for the word
" understand." Hence it is put down in the record just as used by them. In a few
oases, until advised otherwise by Dr. Hodgson, I myself used the symbol in speaking
to the communicator. — J. H. H.

[Pause.]

p. 363.]

316

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Oh I should have so much to do. Where there is light I will always oe,
Mother, mother, mother, mother, mother [?]... going . . . going
. . . going. [A close re-examination of the original automatic writing
indicates that the first of these words looks like "mother." The othen
look like "brother." May 20th, 1900. — R. H. and J. H. H.]

[Pause and listening.]

Do you miss me ?

(8. : Yes ; very much.)

Will you let me return again and help to free my mind ? Do you know
uncle Charles. [See Note p. 422.] (S. : What uncle Charles ?) H<
is here. (S. : I don't know any uncle Charles.) And * * [undec.
No, I am thinking ... let me see.

I think is not a real uncle ; you must remember what I mean.

[This evident consciousness of confusion after I had asked " What Uncle
Charles 1 " is very interesting. I was much puzzled by it, as 1 knew of nc
uncle by that name. The "No" after my denial of this knowledge is
suggestive as partly indicating my correctness and the consciousness off the
confusion immediately alluded to by the "communicator." But this ie
virtually cleared up by the phrase just afterwards, " not a real uncle," which
I did [not] notice or think of until the next sentence was written. With
the resemblance of the word "Charles" (slight resemblance only, and
noticeable only to those familiar with these sittings) to this uncle's name,
and the fact that he was not a real uncle, the incident has a perfectly definite
meaning. — J. H. H.]

He used to be so nervous. [Correct, but with qualifications and differ-
ences of opinion. — J. H. H.]

(S. : Yes, I remember. 1 think 1 know what uncle you mean.)

Yes. You see I must think of them all or you would not [knnot] know
who I was ... It was me . . . [The " me " is natural for father. —
J. H. H.] (S. : That is right.)

Do you remember father? (S. : Yes, well.) Well, speak to him.

(S. : Yes, father, I'm glad to see you since I saw you last. How
are you ?)

All right as right can ever be. I wish you would tell the girls . . tell
. . I am with them in sorrow or pleas— (R. H. : " Sorrow or pleasure ? ")
or joy, it matters not. What is their loss is our gain. [Sounds like him.
— -J. H. H.] I hear you faintly.

(R. H. to S. : Better tell him to free his mind.)

(S. : Free your mind, father.)

I will, indeed, but have you seen the children yet ?

(S. : 1 have not seen them for two years.)

They are wonderfully good, I think.

[Father always thought well of his children, and very frequently spoke
of them in this way to me, whom he took more into confidence than the
others, only he never used the word "wonderful" or "wonderfully" in
thus describing them so far as my memory goes. — J. H. H.]

I know, James, that my thoughts are muddled, but if you can only hear
what I am saying you will not mind it.

Do you know where George is ?

XLl.]

Appendix I.

317

(S. : Yes. I know where he is).

Are you troubled about him . . . he is all right and will be, James.
[Cf. pp. 402, 492.]

[The meaning of this is perfectly clear. I used to complain to father very
much about my brother's neglect of business affairs put into his charge.
We corresponded and conversed about it a great deal the last five or six years
of his life. Father admitted the justice of the complaint, but always
defended my brother and effected a reconciliation between us in regard to
the continuation of certain business relations. — J. H. BL]

(S. : Yes. All right.)

Worry not.

(S. : No, I will not worry.)
But you do.

(S. : Yes. I have worried some, but I will not any more.)

Thank God. James, if you will only stick to this, you stick
. . he [says T) stick to the promise not to worry, you will in time be con-
tented and happy while still . . con . . contented . . can you
not . . while still in the body, ["stick" was father's word for this
idea, and he often used it. ["In the body" was not a phrase he would
use. That lingo was wholly unfamiliar to him. He often reproved
me for worrying, and I would try to make him believe that I did not worry
about things, and he would as often reply in these very words, " But you
do."-J.H.H.]

(8. : Yes. Thank you, father, all right.)

Can you not give me something belonging to him ?

[S. is getting accordion out of parcel, while hand writes :]

He wants it so much, he used [to] play for you.

(S. : Yes, here it is.) [Accordion given.]

[This accordion was one that he had gotten when quite a young man, and
he used often to play on it for us children at home. It was a well worn
instrument as far back as I can remember. He also played on it during his
lonely hours the last few years of his life. It is interesting that this remark
that he had played on it for us was written before I had actually taken it out
of the parcel, but it should be remembered that I had produced the accordion
at the previous sitting (p. 307).— J. H.H.]

James, my son, I was too weak to speak to you before, but I know all
now, and see you just as you looked before I came here. I have not been
here very long, have I ?

(S. : No, you have not, only a short time.)

Don't you think I will always be your father . . .

(S. : Yes.) because I will. I will, we were very happy together*
and you know it.

(S. : Yes, I know it.) [This is correct.— J. H. H.]

What can I do to help Eliza feel that I am not dead ?

(S. : Tell us who are with you, and that will help Eliza.)

Yes, all, you shall know each one. in her. . .

You are not Robertson [?] are you . . . (R. H. : Is that Robertson t )
You are not George, are you ? (S. : No, I am not George.) (R. H. : I
am not . . .)

318

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

No, James. I know you very well, but this other one . . . did you
know the boys ... do you know me ? [Cf. pp. 92, 193.]

(R. H. : I did not know you, but I am a friend of James, and I am helping
him to get clear communications from you, and he wishes that you would
unburden yourself quite fully and freely to him ; he will be here again, and
later on I shall be pleased to take messages from you to him when I am
alone here, and our friends who are helping you over there think it desir-
able. Your . . . James cannot see you. Your thoughts are expressed
in writing by this human organism which Rector or other messenger of
Imperator uses, and therefore I shall be glad if you will free your mind and
then later think over some striking incidents with your son so that he may
feel strongly your presence by your recalling old memories.)

I thank you for helping ine. I see better now, and I . . .

(S. to R. H. : That's the intellectual see now . . . instead of the
sensuous see.) (R. H. to S. : Yes, yes.)

Will help him in every possible way to know all that we both knew.
I could not hear very well before, but I understand it better now.

Do you recall your lectures, and, if so, to whom to do [to whom do you]
recite them now ? I often hear them in my own mind. [This word
*' recite" is very singular. It is like him. — J. H. H.] Give me some
[thing] for the purpose of helping me remain here longer.

(S. : Yes, here it is.) [Giving accordion.]

My toy. I remember it so well. I left all so suddenly, yet I knew I
vas coming.

(S. : Yes, yes. I think so too.)

Do you remember what my feeling was about this life ?
(S. : Yes, I do.)

Well, I was not so far wrong after . . after all.

[Mrs. P. began to write over edge of paper, after the first after, and I
moved her hand to the other side of the sheet. Instead of writing at once
she suddenly put it on the accordion, a foot away, as if to orientate herself.
-J. H. H.]

I felt sure that there would be some knowledge of this life, but you were
doubtful, remember.

(S. : Yes, Yes. I remember.)

You had your own ideas (S. : That is characteristic) [in low murmur],
which were only yours, James.
(S. : Yes. I know.)

Well it is not a fault, and I wish some of the rest had as strong . . .
as good . . .

[This whole passage in reference to my scepticism about a future life is
perfectly correct. My scepticism and abandonment of orthodoxy had hurt
my father very much. It was long before he could get over it, especially as
he had wished me to enter the ministry, though using no compulsion and no
urgent persuasion upon me. I merely knew his intense desire. He knew
my difficulties in this matter and on the question of immortality, on which he
never wavered. Several words and phrases here are perfectly characteristic
of him. " Well, I was not so far wrong," is word for word an expression of
his which he always used, half triumphantly when he found his own

XLI.]

Appendix I.

319

convictions turning out true after being controverted, and half con-
ceding a right to the opposite opinion before it was refuted and his own
verified.

In the next sentence, as soon as I saw the word 44 but " written, I was
curious to see if he would say I was sceptical, the word 44 sceptical" being
the one that came to my mind. I was much interested when, instead, the
word * 4 doubtful " came, as this term was more natural to him, and the one
he always used in that connection. Similarly in the reference to my own
"ideas." He often spoke to me in a half-complaining way, and more
frequently to other members of the family and relatives that it was no use to
interfere with me; that I was resolved to have my 44 own ideas." He
recognised in me what goes sometimes by the name of stubbornness and
sometimes the more respectable name of firmness, and he would always
yield as soon as he saw that argument did not avail, but with some allusion
to my 44 own ideas," never using the word opinions, which I should at least
most frequently use.

44 Well, it is not a fault " is also like him, and was often used in extenuation
of some trait in others of which complaint was made and which had its two
sides. — J. H. H.] [See Note 6, p. 352.]

In a short time they tell me I will be able to recall everything . . .
[not read at once] recall everything I ever did . . . You could be
my . . knew does not ... I will have to go for [a]
moment. Wait for me.

(S. : Yes, I will.) [Pause.]

Friend, there is a little girl here who is trying to find her mother and we
are doing all we can to comfort her.

(S. to R. H. : The girl or the mother ?) (R. H. to S. : The girl, I
think.)

She is bright enough . . enough . . bright enough.

Who is Ruth ?

(S. : I do not know Ruth.)

Not to thee, friend, but to thee [i.e., it refers to R. H.]

[This refusal to recognise me and to connect the child Ruth with me was
very interesting. On any theory of thought-transference there ought to
have been confusion such as the name produced in me ; for I could not
assign the name any meaning, except that I could recall no Ruth in my
acquaintance. If this feeling could determine the refusal to locate the
child within the group of my memories, then telepathy could account for
turning me off in this way. But then, if the incident has any relevancy to
Dr. Hodgson, this hypothesis of thought-transference from my mind in
connection with a desire on the part of the medium to 44 fish" must go by
the board.— J. H. H.]

(R. H. : Is it a friend or relative of mine, do you think ?) We do.

(R. H. : Rector, there is Mrs. Thaw's little . . . ) [Hand dis-
sents.]

(R. H. : Not that.) No, not she.

(R. H. : It cannot be . . . Oh, wait one moment, kindly. Is Ruth
the name of the child ? Is it Margaret Ruth ?) It is.

(R. H. : It surely is not the youngest child of my sister Ellen, is it t)

320

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

We think it is.

(R. H. : This is very important. My . . . )

We will surely ascertain the truth and give answer at our next meeting,
after talking with her. (R. H. : Yes.)

If there be light enough we will give thee more knowledge of her • . .
be good.

She is trying to find her mother, who is still in the body.
[See next sitting, p. 330.— R. H.]

We see thy father returning to thee. Friend, he was, he says, the last
to come here. [Correct (December 31st, 1899).— J. H. H.]
(S. : That is right)

And he will recall every fact he ever knew. He says he thought even
more, if possible, of you than all the rest. Do you think so ? he asks.
(S. : Tes, I do think so.)

It is my feeling, James, and why not express it ?

(S. : That is right, father.) (S. to R. H. : That's exactly like him,
because . . .)

Do you recall the fact of my being frank ?

[Father was always very reserved about expressing his feelings to us,
and in his correspondence with me he would often half apologise in this
way for his frankness. 4 'It is my feeling, and why not express it?"
is the very phrase of his letters to me, which I could prove had I
kept any of my correspondence with him, except a few of his last letters.
I have been in the habit of destroying all my letters for lack of space
to keep them, inasmuch as my correspondence has been large. But the
phrase and thought is his exactly. It is the same with the allusion to
his being "frank," and the reader should note that the interrogatory form
of the allusion to frankness suggests the working of an independent
mind.— J. H. H.]

(8. : Yes, I do.)

Sincerity of purpose . . . my sincerity.

I recall the struggles you had over your work well, very well. [Ail true,
and is a long story. — J. H. H.]

Everything in life should be done with sincerity of purpose.

[This expression " sincerity of purpose " was a very frequent one with
him when admonishing me of my dangers, both before and after my diffi-
culties with scepticism. It almost broke his heart to see me going in that
direction, as his fear was that I should in consequence of it lead a life of
vice. The only thing that ever reconciled him to my apostasy was the
knowledge that I did not fall in this respect, and that I was terribly in
earnest about my opinions. When discussing them, as we seldom did, because
I knew our great difference in point of view, he never having had the
scientific education that I had, he would insist, when he saw the intellectual
difficulties of his own faith — and he saw them, for he had a remarkably clear
insight — he would insist that the great thing was "sincerity of purpose."
Of course, he is apologising here fur his own sincerity of purpose in
admonishing me in these difficulties, virtually indicating that there was
ground for my scepticism, which is here discovered after death. But in life

XLI.]

Appendix I.

321

he always pleaded this " sincerity of purpose " when admonishing us against
our own ways and convictions, as well as indicating that it was the chief
thing for us to cultivate. Hence to meet this here with allusion to my
struggles in life has an extraordinary interest and fitness, on any theory that
can be adopted regarding it.

The expression below also is interesting. He used to caution me against
having so many irons in the lire, using much the same expression as used
here, namely, " so many different ideas." — J. H. H.]

I know well all the difficulties which you encounter. (S. to R. H. :
Encounter's just the word he'd use, the word difficulties too.) [I would have
said 44 had " or " met." — J. H. H.] But keep on as you have been and you will
master them ere long. So many different ideas . . different ideas . .
are not easily managed. But never mind, do not be troubled . . . (S. :
I thought he was going to say what he said before, there) [that is, " worried,"
but the pencil wrote ** troubled " instead of " worried," which was in my
mind. — J. H. H.] about it, it will not last for ever, and I am getting
stronger.

(S. : No, I will not trouble any more about it.)

Well, do you really think you underst . . understand . . stronger
. . [not read above] understand ?

And I will come again with more clearness with the help of this [pause]
+ man who wears the cross.

James my son, James my son, speak to me, I am going far away.

(R. H. to S. : Coming to an end. Yes— going — say you'll be pleased to
see him again, and so on.)

(S. : Yes, father, I shall be pleased to see you again. I shall have to go
now.)

I am too far off to think more for you. J. H. H. { R }
[As the sitting was thus coming to a close I was struck with the writing
of my initials. — J. H. H.]

Friend, we ask thee ere we depart, when thou wilt return. We must
restore this light a little before we can speak as we dr . . speak as . .

(R. H. : We . . . to-morrow is Christmas day, and there will be no
use of the light. Will the first day after the Sabbath be too soon ?)

We would in all cases where there are changes of persons . . are
changes . . give the day before and after the . . the day before
and also the Sabbath if possible. If not, we will use the light as best we
can, but with new communicators we prefer it good.

(R. H. : I . . . cannot myself tell. This friend was coming by your
arrangement on the first and second days after the Sabbath, but . . .)

We will have it so. We do not think that thou hast U D us.

(R. H. : No, I fear not)

Do we U D that there is only the Sabbath between our meeting ?

(R. H. : Yes, only the Sabbath.)

Well it will be for us ; and we will make it good.

(Amen.)

We go now, and may God's blessings rest on thee. 4- { R }
[Cross in air.]

desire.

322

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]1

II. H . sh . . [Repeated again and again. R. H. thinks she is
trying to repeat his name. Sounds to him like Hishon.] (R. H. : Hodg-
son ? Who is it?) * * * Hlslop.

I am he.

Tell him I am his father.
I.

Good bye, sir.

I shouldn't take him away, that way.
Oh, dear.

Do you see the man with the cross shut out everybody

Did you see the light ?

What made the man's hair all fall off ?

(R. H. : What man ?)

That elderly gentleman that was trying to tell me something, but it
wouldn't come.

(R. H. : You couldn't hear it ?)

[Mrs. P., as she was coming out of the trance, began to utter a name.
I recognised this as 4 4 Hyslop " twice before Dr. Hodgson, and deliberately
refused to say so with the hope that he would recognise it also. His
failure was quite pardonable, because the first name mentioned two
or three times sounded to me like his own. Besides, he was in a
poorer position to catch it than I. When I told him what it was he
recognised it at once, but his queries addressed to Mrs. P. had turned
her pronunciation more toward his own name, as at first indicated. But as
soon as I indicated what she was trying to say, doing this first by asking him,
14 Don't you hear what she is trying to say ? " and then saying to him * 4 Hyslop "
(short sound of 44y"), he saw and assented at once, and Mrs. P. then pro-
nounced the name much more distinctly, though strangely enough she now
pronounced it with the 44 y " sound instead of the short 44 i " ; that is, 44 High-
slop " instead of 44 Hislop," the latter being the correct pronunciation and the
first one given by Mrs. P., though nearly every one adopts the former until
told the proper one. In the neighbourhood in which I was brought up, and
in Scotland, the name is often pronounced 44Hayslop," and sometimes
44 Highslop." But father never used this last. For the most of his life he
had used %i Hayslop," when speaking to neighbours and others, but elsewhere
and with his sisters it was 44 Hislop," and most especially during the last ten
years of his life when all of us conspired to fix the pronunciation as
44 Hislop," father falling in with this, and so generally that in the community
whither he had gone in another State to spend the last years of his life
(1889-1896) it was always pronounced 44 Hislop," so far as I know, among
neighbours and intimate acquaintances.

But it must be remembered in all this that I had never taken off my mask,
and that Mrs. Piper had not seen my face since she had seen it some four or

1 The Roman numerals I. and II., referring to Mis. Piper's subliminal con-
sciousness (see Proceeding* S.P.R., Vol. XIII., pp. 397 and 400-1), ire used to indicate
what appear to be two stages of (his condition, which, however, are not always very
clearly marked. I. represents the stage nearest to her ordinary waking state and II.
the deeper stage. —J. H. H.

XLI.]

Appendix I.

323

six [over six] years ago, and that I had been careful not to say a word to her or
in her hearing while she was normal, except on the occasion of this second
sitting, when I spoke to her in an unnatural and a changed voice after
entering the door. Some three hundred feet from the house, before turning
into the street where she lives, and before even the house could be seen, I
had put on my mask and at once went from the coach to the door. Mrs. P.
was inside, and seeing me on the porch, where I stood for a moment, opened
the door and asked me to come in, saying that she had a very good name
among her neighbours and did not wish them to see me. I said nothing at
first, but when Dr. Hodgson came in I made some remark in as sepulchral
tones as I could command, and said no more until after Mrs. P. entered the
trance.

I should also further add that during the whole time I was present in
both sittings, both in her normal condition and during the trance, I did not
have the slightest physical contact with Mrs. P., except two or three times
long enough in the trance to move the arm into position. — J. H. H.]

Sitting III.— December 26<A, 1898.
Introduction.

Mrs. Piper passed into the trance as usual, and there is nothing to
record in regard to that matter except the unusual promptness with
which she entered it. As my name was announced at the previous
sitting I did not deem it necessary this time to wear my mask, but it
is interesting to record that nearly as little was known about my
presence as if I had worn it. We were met at the door by the servant
and went up to the room where the sittings are held without seeing
Mrs. P. I sat down on the floor in a corner of the room behind the
sofa to untie a package with almost my back toward the door where
Mrs. P. was to enter. She entered and spoke indifferently to Dr.
Hodgson. I looked up to speak, but her face was turned away from
me and I quickly turned back to my work without speaking, and in a
moment I overheard Mrs. P. remark to Dr. Hodgson that she had not
seen me until then. I turned my head to look at her and found that
she was not looking at me at all, but was in position for the trance.
I then moved into my proper place and not the slightest attention was
paid to me, and soon Mrs. P. was in the trance, apparently without the
slightest clue as to who I was, even if she had known me well before.
I left the sitting before she recovered consciousness, so that there was
practically nothing still to identify me though I offered the opportunity
for it by abandoning the mask. I do not say that she could not have
identified me, but only that the conditions of the present (third) sitting
were practically as good for concealment as in the two previous

Digitized by

824

J. H. Hydop, PLD.

[PABT

instances, though this fact requires neither recognition nor emphasis,
but only to be recorded, because the announcement of my name in the
previous sitting made it unnecessary to practise any further precautions
by wearing a mask. — J. H. H.

Rector. (R.H. : Good morning.)

Good morrow, friends of earth. We hail thee once more with pleasure.
+ would ask thee whether or not thou hast U D His direction which He last
gave thee.

(R. H. : I am not sure. Kindly tell me.)

He intends to arrange for thee to rest two whole days, viz.% the first before
the Sabbath, also the Sabbath, unless in a case similar to thy friend present.
U D. (Cf. close of previous sitting p. 321.)

(R. H. : Yea ; you mean that the light should always rest on the day
before each Sabbath and also the Sabbath.) [Cross in air.] Unless there
be . . there be . . some worthy friend who is in great sorrow.
[Gross in air.]

(R. H. : Yes. I understand, except in special cases. Yes, I think I
understand clearly.)

Then in such cases He will return to thee or thine.

(R. H. : Yes.) All is well and will ever be. [Cross in air.]

Prudena and Rector will now bring these friends. Peace be with them
and thee. More light from Prudens. All is clear, and I help him to find
the light.

Oh, how thankful I am for this day.

James, James, James, speak my son, to me. I am coming, coming to
you, hear . . hear . . . Who will fill my place? [Cf. p. 313.]
Where are you, James ? Where are you ?

(S. : I am here, father, is that you ?)

[Excitement.] Yes, it is I, James, I who is speaking to you. It is I who
is speaking to you.

(S. : Yes, I am glad to see you or hear from you.)

I wanted to ask you before I got too weak if you remember of the story
I used . . I used to tell you of a fire. [I cannot imagine what this
means.— J. H. H.] [Cf. Note 21, p. 364, and Note 48, p. 503 ]

(S. : What story, father ?)

When I was quite young. Does [?] James recall the fire I used to

speak about . . .

Fire he says [in reply to question by R. H. if the word above was /re.]
It was the whole [?] city was it not ? (S. : Yes, it was in the city.) It

was, did he say ?

[At the time of the sitting the words " the whole city " were interpreted
as "in the city," and hence my acknowledgment as I thought, according to
a contemporary note, of a special fire which impressed me when a boy, but
which obviously had nothing to do with the statements of my father, the

Becord of Sitting, December 2Qthy 1898.
[Rector writes.]

XLI.]

Appendix /.

325

acknowledgment, however, being made to encourage the communicator to
continue. I employed this method very frequently. (April 16th, 1900).—
J. H. H.] [See Note 21, p. 364, and Note 48, p. 503.]

(R. H. to S. : Speak low as I do, it's much more intelligible.)

I am glad to hear something of you. Do you know in a little while I
will be able to recall every thing . . every . . tha I . . .
will not . . . ever knew.

Where are my books, James ? I want something to think over and I
will keep quite near you. [Accordion given.]

Nearer [?] . . I see clearly now, and oh if I could only tell you all
that is in my mind.

It was not an hallucination, but a reality, but I felt it would be possible
for me to reach you. . . hallucination [The reference of this is to some- »
thing later, so that my interruption by the following question was out of
place.— J. H. H.]

(S. : Yes, I think so. Do you remember more about that fire ?)

Oh yes, the fire. Strange I was forgetting to go on. [Not read at
time.] I was nearly forgetting to go on. Yes. I do rem . . . forgeg
. . forgetting to go on with it . . it. The fire did great damage, I
remember, and I used to think I never would care to see the like again.
I want you to hear, if possible, what I am saying to you, because I have it
. it quite clearly in my mind.

Were the books destroyed ? (S. : No, they were not destroyed, I have
some of them at my home.) \Cf. pp. 325, 490, 473, 523.]

I wish you had them . I remember [fj all. I am thinking • ,
(R. H. : Slow, Rector, please.)
Didst thou speak, friend ?

(R. H. : I said, " Slow, Rector, please." Get him to speak very slowly
so that your writing may be slower and clearer so that we may follow. Ask
him to be quite calm and think slowly and speak slowly to you, and not get
too excited about his remembrances.)

Well done. He is a very intelligent spirit and will do a great deal for us
when he realises where he is now and what we are requesting him to do.
[What not written between and and we, but added afterwards when the
sentence was read over without it.] Yes [to correct reading.]

James, are you here still? If so I want very much to know if you
remember what I promised you . . what I promised you.

(S. : Yes, I hope you will tell me what you promised.)

I told you if it would be possible for me to return to you I would.

(S. : Yes, I remember.)

And convince you that I lived [not read] ; try and convince you that I
lived. I told you more than this, and I will remember it all. I told you
I would come back if possible, and ... let you know that I was not
annihilated. I remember, remember well our talks about this life and its
conditions, and there was a great question of doubt as to the possibility of
communication ; that, if I remember rightly, was the one question which
we talked over.

Will return soon. Wait for me.

(S. : Yes, 1 shall wait.)

326

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PAftT

[Here is an incident of more than usual interest. It cannot be understood
without a lengthy narrative. Two chronologically distinct, but connected,
events are here alluded to. One of them, our talk on the future life, etc.,
took place a year before his death, and the other, his possible intention to
return to me (p. 366), occurred on his death-bed. I have already remarked
in my comments on the second sitting that there seemed to be an allusion to
a conversation which I had had with him on the subject of psychical research
and its importance, just after my visit to Indianapolis, already referred to.
There is an evident reference to this again here in the communicator's
language. This is quite striking to me from the statement a little earlier
about its "not being an hallucination, but a reality." He was not familiar
with the term hallucination, though he knew its import very well. But
in our talk about the subject of evidence for the hereafter I was careful to
lay much stress upon the fact of hallucination and the difficulties that it
produced for any claim to scientific proof. He saw it, but his faith
was too strong to be moved by it, and I can see the half -triumphant tone of
his present manner, as it always was in like situations verifying his own
belief or forecast of any event, though not in any boasting or victorious
spirit, but only the strong satisfaction that he felt, as perhaps all of us
would, when we found a faith become an indubitable fact.

With this conversation in view the allusion to the promise made me is
one of much interest. When I was sent word by my aunt (Eliza, the one
alluded to in the first sitting) that father had suddenly come to his old home
very ill, I knew that his end was near. I had been expecting such a crisis
for months. I immediately sat down and wrote him an affectionate letter.
I could not conceal from him my belief that his illness meant death. I
ended my letter with the following sentence: — "I want you to come to
me after it is all over." I had no belief in immortality at the time, though
I did not disbelieve it. It has usually seemed possible to me, but the
argument seemed to me overwhelmingly strong for materialism. Neverthe-
less I knew that there was no way either to prove immortality, or to show
more clearly that it could not be proved, than the method of psychical
research ; and though I had never had, and believe I never would have, an
apparition, I was not above Darwin's playing his bassoon to his plants, and
ventured on this suggestion to father as he stood on the brink of the grave,
so that if it succeeded I could personally record such a coincidence, and if it
did not, record that fact. I had no apparition of him, and in fact never
thought of my request half a dozen times afterward. But it is not a little
interesting to find here [see below] the statement that he has been calling
for me ever since his death. He replied to my letter on his deathbed, and
I have it still, the last letter he ever wrote me. I do not remember whether
he made in it the promise he here says he made to me. My impression is
that he did not, because I remember keeping the letter mainly for the reason
that it was his last. I shall see, however, what it says when I get access to
it in New York.

It is evident, however, in the conception of the communicator that he
has viewed the promise from the standpoint of communication, not
apparition, and that his mind in thinking of the promise reverts to the
conversation two years before, or thereabouts, when the whole question

XLI.]

Appendix I.

327

discussed was about the possibility of communication between discarnate
and incarnate minds. I explained to him what telepathy meant and what
was possible if it was true. He saw it, and as at that time I could not accept
more than telepathy and was cautious and sceptical about that, I expressed
very grave doubts about communication with the dead. Hence there could
not be a more pertinent statement, on the part of one who claims to be my
father, than the one here made : " There was a great question of doubt as
to the possibility of communication, that, if I remember rightly, was the
great question which we talked over."— J. H. H.] [See also Note 9, p. 356.]

I am Prudens, and I give light. I am thy friend and thou wilt call for
me when thou dost need help. P. (R. H. : Yes, thank you.)

Mr. H. returns.

(S. : That H is good.)

I feel better now, James. I felt very much confused when I first came
here. I could not seem to make out why I could not make you hear me at
first. I have been calling for you ever since I left my body. 1 can hear
better and my ideas are clearer than ever before. I would like to hear you
speak.

(S. : Yes, father, free your mind. I shall listen and understand.)

I will leave nothing undone, but will reach you clearly and talk as we
used, when I could speak independently of thought. I have not yet found out
why it is that I have difficulty in speech. [I misunderstood this, and hence
the following impertinent question. — J. H. H.]

(S. : Do you know what the trouble was when you passed out ?)

No, I did not realise that we had any trouble, James, ever.

(S. to R. H. : Misunderstood my statement.)

I thought we were always most congenial to each other.

(S. to R. H. : Must correct that misunderstanding.)

I do not remember any trouble, tell me what was it about you . . .
do not mean with me, do you ...

(S. : Father, you misunderstand me. I mean with the sickness.)

[Excitement.]

Oh, yes. I hear. I hear you. Yes. I know now. Yes, my stomach.

(S. : Yes. Was there anything else the matter ?)

Yes. Stomach, liver. (R. H. : Liver ?)

He says and head.

(S. : Very well. Tell all about it.)

He has taken off this condition, but tells me he could not see clearly.
What was meant by his eyes ? His stomach and . . .
Speak plainly. . . [To invisible.] I do not get it.
Sounds like Bone [f] (R. H. : Can't read that.)

(S. : Is that6owe?) Bone[?] Bone[?]he . . he is telling me. WaitT
He places his hand over his . . . heart beat [?]
<S. : Heart?)

Yes, let me. reach thee [not read] reach thee, friend.
[Hand moves over R. H.'s head.]

Think I am finding it hard to breathe . . . my heart, James . . .
my heart, James . . . difficult to breathe.
Do you not remember how I used to breathe ?

828

J. H. Hydap, Ph.D.

[part

(S. : Yes, father, you are on the right line now.)

Yes, I think it was my heart which troubled me most. . I . . and
my lung . .

stomach and heart. I felt a * * [undeo.] and tightness of my
chest . . . and my heart failed me. He says distressed in the region
of the heart, but at last I went to sleep. Was it not congestion, James ?

(S. : Not that I know of.) [I had the catarrh in mind in this answer.
I should have had the death scene in view. (November 3rd, 1899.) —
J. H. H.]

I will try and remember all about it, he says, yet I remember heart and
head well.

[The confusion in the communicator's mind which my question "Do
you know what the trouble was when you passed out?" created was a
surprise to me. When he spoke of his ignorance about the cause of his
difficulty of speech, I thought that he was alluding to the difficulties from
which he had suffered for three years before his death, and especially on his
death-bed. But on reading the passage now I see that it refers to the diffi-
culty of communicating his thoughts during the sitting. But thinking that
he was referring to his sickness I asked him what the " trouble" was with
which he died, using here the spiritistic lingo, as I have done all along
purposely, and it was a surprise to see the reply, which was natural enough
with the context, and, what is quite as striking, characteristic of many of
his letters to me whenever any difference of opinion arose. The word
** trouble " was generally used by him to express perplexities and annoyances
with others growing out of personal relations with them, and was not used
by him to express sickness, but only the accidents of sickness when men-
tioned, so that his diversion here is very natural.

At the time of the sitting I shook my head and thought that the
communicator was wrong when, in what follows the confusion awakened by
my question, the communicator mentioned his stomach and, after much
struggling, his heart, lungs and breathing. The last seemed like it, but
the first three did not. I had in mind his throat trouble, catarrh as he
called it, which in reality was probably cancer of the larynx. Hence I
wanted to see if he would mention what he had thought his sickness was,
and what he had so often called it. Hence my demurral to its correctness
when I saw the allusion to his stomach, heart and lungs, and the "conges-
tion." But when I came to read the notes over after the sitting it seemed
clear that the communicator had interpreted my phrase 44 when you passed
out " as referring to the final crisis, and the whole narrative took on another
meaning. I saw that it described exactly the chief incidents that occurred
during the last half hour especially, and less strikingly the last hour, of
his life. These must be described as fully as possible.

For about two months before his death my father had suffered from loss
of appetite, a thing that had never been characteristic of him, and during
these two months he had little satisfaction from eating. During the week
in which I helped to nurse him. the difficulty from swallowing on the one
hand and the weakening of digestion on the other led to the necessity for
artificial feeding, but during the last twenty-four hours of his illness, even
this process accomplished nothing. On my inquiry also there was found to

XLI.]

Appendix I.

829

be very little hunger, until on the morning of his death. About seven in
this morning he complained of hunger, and on bringing the doctor we were
able, about eight or half-past eight, to raise him up in bed to give him some
milk. But he could drink very little of it, and with this hunger, which is
the frequent messenger of death, he threw himself back upon the pillow with
the remark : ''It is too late." His pulse still showed a reasonably good
condition. He had himself, all through his illness, watched his pulse, and
even during the spasms of the larynx, when we thought he would perish,
there seemed to be no diminution of the heart action such as would be
expected as death approached. This kept up well until about half an hour
before death, which occurred about ten o'clock in the morning. I noticed a
gradual weakeuing of the pulse and the speech until he could not move his
hand or any part of his body. In the early stages of this oncoming weakness
when I undertook to feel the pulse, he several times rather petulantly shook
his arm as if to prevent my effort, a thing he had never done before,
but rather exhibited, or even manifested on his own part, a desire to
feel his pulse or to have it folt. But in this weakening condition he
also reached out his hand for that of his wife, and, being utterly unable
to speak, could only press it in token of farewell. Soon the breathing
became shorter and shorter, and there seemed to be the most tremendous
and agonising efforts to take a full breath. The doctor had told me
that this shortening of the breath during the spasms was due to con-
gestion, caused by the attack of the spasm, and he also intimated that it
might at any time terminate his life. Finally the pulse became too weak to
be noticed, the breathing too short to supply air, and the eyes assumed the
fixed gaze of death, and one last effort was made to obtain a breath, the
eyes closed, and I remarked, " He's gone." Then the lower jaw fell, and the
crisis was passed. He had complained during the last period of the illness,
especially during some of the last hours, of great pain in the head, but this
was not limited to the crisis which I have just described. The whole
narrative which this explains, and which claims to be from my father,
pursues this description quite closely as any one can see.

The incident about the trouble with the eyes I cannot confirm, but may
be able to do so from my mother, if it be true. It is also my impression
that the doctor had remarked by the bedside that there was congestion in
the lungs when any extreme difficulty occurred with the breathing. The
conformity of the narrative, however, to the facts known to me is quite
evident and remarkable.— J. H. H.] [Cf. Note 10, p. 350].

[The following letter was received to-day and confirms the statement
which I have made above, that I thought congestion in the lungs had been
mentioned to father or within his hearing.

My Deak Mr. Hyslop, —Father has been ill with La Grippe since
Sunday, and though able to be down stairs now, still feels weak. At his
request I write to say that you are right in thinking that he had spoken to
your father himself concerning the congestion of the lungs — as well as to
you. He sends his kindest regards and with me wishes you a Happy
and Prosperous New Year — Yours sincerely,

Xenia, Ohio.

Theirs, noon.

Will Dice.

330

J. K Hyslop, PLD.

[part

It will be remarked that the above letter has no date. Bat the
envelope is marked very clearly " Xenia, Ohio, Dec. 29, 5 p.m., '98." This
was Thursday as the calendar shows. (See Note 8, p. 356, and Note 10,
p. 367.) (December 31st, 1898). — J. H. H.]

(S. : Do you remember what medicine I got in New York '()

(S. : Do you remember what medicine I got in New York for you ?)

Yes, I do faintly.

Never mind . . . tell me about it later, when you feel clear. [From
Rector to communicator.] Give him something . . him something.
[From Rector to sitters ]

[Accordion given.]

James, it was my heart, and I remember it well, and my eyes troubled
me also. Do you remember this ?

(S. : No, I do not remember this.) [One of these incidents, that about
the eyes, I did not know, and the other I was not thinking of. (November
3rd, 1899.) -J. H. H.]

Do you not remember what the swelling meant? [Not read at first.]
He says swelling.

[The external surface of the throat was swollen, and it is interesting to
note this question because it betrays just that kind of conception which 1
would expect him to entertain while thinking that his disease was catarrh ;
for it appears to betray consciousness of a contradiction between what he
knew of catarrh in myself and what he thought this was. — J. H. H.]

I remember taking hold . . hold of my own hands and holding them
together over my chest. [I do not remember this. — J. H. H.] [See Note 22,
p. 364.] But strange I cannot think of the word I want. I know it so
well too.

(S. : Do I know it also ?) [Hand assents.]
Oh yes, very well.

(S. : Did I ever have the same sickness ?) [I was thinking of catarrh in
this question. (November 3rd, 1899.) — J. H. H.] Yes, long ago. [Correct.
—J. H. H.]

(S. : Yes, that is right. What did I do for it ?)

This is what I cannot think, and it troubles ine a little, James, because I
know it so well.

(R. H. : Rector, would it not be better for him to leave for a moment 7)
Yes, he is going. + called him.

[To R. H.] No, the little girl is not thy sister's child, friend. [See
previous sitting, p. . — R. H.] We will give thee more about her later, if
we need . . . need for us to do so . . need.

Friend, they have sent thy brother here for a few moments to wait thy
father's return.

(S. : Yes. Which brother is it ?)

It is I. I have been here so long. Is Scarlet fever a bad thing to have in
the body ?

[This is in reality the correct answer to my question in the earlier sitting.
(See p. 309.) My brother died of scarlet fever. He was taken with both
scarlet fever and measles at the same time according to the diagnosis of the
physician, and my father and mother were told during the progress of the

XLJ.]

Appendix I.

331

illness that one of them would prevail over the other. This was very
noticeable before his death, the scarlet fever overcoming the measles and
driving the rash from measles down and out through the extremities, as it
were. The sister who took sick on the day of my brother's funeral and died
in twelve days had only the scarlet fever.— J. H. H .]
(S. : Yes, it is. Tell more about it.)

I had it* and I woke in . . . When I waked up I found I really had
been dreaming . found (S. : Yes, I understand.) Are you happy . .
happy while you are going on dreaming ?

(R. H. [S.] : Yes. Who passed out soon after you T)

Mother [? brother] ... is here also.

(S. : Mother, is that you ?) Yes.

Yes, we are all here. Do you know who Sarah is ? Anne [Anna 7]

[I did not know at the time that Sarah was the name of my twin
sister who died when in her fourth month. (November 3rd, 1899.) — J. H. H.]
[See Note 5, p. 349.]

(S. : Yes. I know who Annie is.) She wants to see you. (S. : Well,
I hope we can some day.) She says you dream while she lives, and she
sends her love to you . . love. Where is brother James ?

(S. : This is brother James here. I am brother James.)

How you have changed since I came here. [Compare Proceedings, Vol.
XIII., p. 324. —J. H. H.]

Do you remember anything about my hair ? There is something I wish
y.»u to know. Do you, if you are my dear brother, recall anything about
my hair ?

(S. : I am not quite certain.)

They took a piece of it away. Did you know this ?

(S. : I think you are right.)

I know I am. I know it well, James.

And 1 remember a little picture of me taken when I was very young.
[Correct — J. H. H.] Who has it now ?

(S. : Who has it now ?) (R. H. to S. : That's what she's asking yon.)

I cannot find it, and I have thought about it so much.

(S. : I think I remember now. Do you remember Aunt Nannie ?) [Excite-
ment in hand.]

Well, I think [?] I do very well I was named for her. [Not correct
(April 18th 1900.W. H. H.]

(R H. : Rector, ask her to be calm.) [Cross in air.]

Yes. I think I do very well. I was really named for her.

(S. : Yes?) Yes, I say. Has she it? (S. : Yes, she has it.)

Give her ray love and tell sister Annie tells her . . . Anna not
Anna but Annie. And I am your sister. [See Notes 3, P.S., p. 348, and
11. p. 368.]

(S. : Yes, I remember you well.)

Do you not have anything to say to me ? I came here just after Charles
. . Charles. [Correct. —J. H. H.]

(S. : Yes, that is right. I am glad to hear from you.)

I tried years ago to reach you. + [This indicates the presence of
Imperator.] I tried years ago through father. Did you know this ? (S. :

332

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

No, I did not know this.) I did. And if Auntie is still in the body she will
remember this. Here comes father. [See Note 11, p. 368.]

Yes. James. I do remember something about your getting some
quien [?] (S. : Medicine?) (R. H. : Quinine ?) [Dissent.] [See Note 12,
p. 358.]

It begins with D. (S. : Not quite. Can you spell it ?) Oh, I know it
so well, yet I cannot say it when I wish to.

(S. : Father, do not worry about it now. It will come again.) Yes, and
I will tell it this friend if not to you.

I told him this. R. [i.e., Rector told the communicator.]

(R. H. : Good.)

I am anxious for you to know all about me, and if there is anything that
the children or I can do for you to know that we are all together again I will
really keep my promise to you.

(S. : Yes, father, I am glad of that. I heard many good words from
Annie, and they pleased me very much.) Yes, and she has been here longer
than I have, James . . She has been here longer than I have I James,
and is clearer in her thoughts when she is trying to speak, but do not feel
troubled about it. I will in time be able to tell you all. (S. : Yes, father,
I think you will. Don't worry but keep calm.) I want you to know I ain
at this moment trying to think of anything but sickness. (R. H. "every-
thing about sickness.") No anything but . . but. (S. : I see — that's
it.) And now do you remember what I tried to talk over with you besides
. . . I am clearer now . . . coming here, and what we used to say
about your work. 1 think you were happier in it, were you not, very much,
now out with it, James.

Do you hear her sing [Not read.] (R. H. : No, the words are not clear.
Rector.) Cing. (R. H. : " Coming?") Do you not hear her sing ging
singing ? (R. H. : No.)

Friend, there is something and we will be obliged to ask thee to move.
(S. : I'm to move?) (R. H. : I don't know.) [S. goes over to the other
side of room.] No, return. [S. returns.] [Cf. pp. 429, 467.]

Yes, my head grows lighter and lighter. Do you know the last thing I
recall is your speaking to me. [When the eyelids fell in death, I alone
remarked, " He's gone."— J. H. H.] (S. : Yes. Right.)

And you were the last to do so. (S. : Very well. Was any one else at
the bedside ? )

I remember seeing your face, but I was too [to] weak to answer. Hear
me now. Where is Eliza ? (S. : She is at home.)
I remember her and Robertson [ ?] well.

(R. H. : Robertson, is that ?) (S. : I think I know.) (S. : Robert who ?)
[My question was absurd. I thought it an attempt to name my brother
Robert, but it was probably my uncle ** Charles " asking if I was there.
(November 3rd, 1899.)-J. H. H.] [Cf. pp. 310, 317.] Do you know
Rector ? 1 remember him well.

Wasn't he there, James, or did he come in later ... to thee ?

(S. : Yes. He came in after you.)

I thought so, as I remember it.

Yes, Hyslop. I know who I am. And Annie, too.

XLI.]

Appendix I.

333

And long before the SUN shall set for you I will give you a full and
complete account of your old father, James.

Keep quiet, do not worry about any thing, as I used to say. It does not
pay. Remember this ?

[This sentence is word for word, if I may use the expression, what he
used to say to me when he found me worrying. The part " It does not
pay " is especially his phrase in this connection. The same can be said of
the reference to my not being " the strongest man " (see below), except that
his phrase in life was usually, " you are not very strong," or " you are not
as strong as the others." I am, however, not so certain of his variety of
phrase as I am of his constant allusions to my want of strength and caution-
ing me against worrying about things.— J. H. H.]

(R. H. : We've got him clear now.)

(S. : Yes, father, I remember that well.)

That, James, was my advice always, and it is still the same. You are
not strongest man you know and . . the [written above the word
strongest] and health is important for you. Cheer up now and be quite
yourself.

(S. : Yes, father, I shall. I am glad to hear this advice.)

Remember, it does not pay, and life is too short there for you to spend
it in worrying. [Of. pp. 40, 362.] You will come out all safe and well,
and will one day be reunited with us, and we shall meet face to face, and
you will know me well.

[Two expressions here are exactly like ray father. He used frequently to
talk to us children of reunion after death, and spoke of " meeting face to
face." This latter phrase was also often used when speaking of meeting
God. -J. H. H.]

What you cannot have, be content without. [Not read.]

[This advice was also constantly his. — J. H. H.]

No ; before we go we want you to hear what . . what he is saying. R.
What you cannot have, be content without. [Not read.]
[R. H. says he cannot read the word after be."]

I must catch it while he is saying it. I will then repeat afterwards if
necessary . . afterwards.

(R. H. : Good.) U D. (R. H. : Yes.)

Be content without, he says. His sentence [sentense] was as follows :
What you cannot have, be content without . . be con . . [Read
correctly.] Yes. Health or anything else, but do not worry, and not for me.
This is going to be my life, and you will know all that is possible for any
one to know. (S. : Yes, father, I am glad of that. It will be my life here,
too.) Yes, I know it, and as we lived th . . lived there . . there so
we will also live here. Devoted you were to me always, and I have nothing
to complain of except your uneasy temperament, and that I will certainly
help. Only trust in all that is good, James, and be contented whilst you
stay, and I will certainly be near you. I am a little weary, James, but I
will return and recall, if possible, my medicine.

He is taking me away.

(R. H. : Yes, you will have one day more now with your son.)
Oh, let me refresh myself and return to him.

334

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

(R. H. : Yes, think . . . )

Seek and ye shall find. [A biblical phrase often quoted by him to us. —
J. H. H.]

(R. H. [S.] : Father, good-bye until to-morrow, and I will see you
then.)

Come in to-morrow and see how I am getting along. Remember this ?
(S. : Yes, father. I shall remember this.) But do you remember my
saying this to you . . saying this. (S. : Yes, father.)

[I do not remember specific incident, but something like it occurred
frequently when I helped nurse him on his death-bed. (December 30th,
1899.)— J. H. H.]

What I will do [?] I will. [Crosses in air.]

+ Friends, we must cease now, and we have him in our holy keeping,
when all earthly recollections will return to his memory.

Patience and peace be unto thee. (Amen.)

Now speak, friend, if thou wilt, and we must be gone.

(R. H. : Only I was about to tell his father to think over some incidents
for him to come prepared to tell his son to-morrow.) [Cross in air.]

Well it will be. May the grace of God be with and abide with thee
evermore. -I- {R}.

[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]
II. [Some words of which all that I could distinguish was]
* * * Jam es.

[While Dr. Hodgson was occupied in getting his things together, I
heard Mrs. Piper remark faintly just before emerging what sounded like
"Hyslop," though quite indistinct, soon after uttering the "James" as
observed by Dr. Hodgson. — J. H. H.]

Sitting IV.
Recort of Sitting, December 27th, 1898.
[Imperator writes.]

[Cross in air.]

+ HAIL. (R. H. : Hail, Imperator.)

We have thus far not failed thee, friend, neither will we * * *
[undec.] (R. H. : It is not very clear, the writing.) And we desire that
thy earthly friends * * * * [undec.] during the coming months, after
which we will give thee further instruction as to what * * * [undec.]
best to take. May . . . still may all good be over thee and His
blessings rest on thee. Thy friend's father will answer to * * [undec.]
and * * [undec] of all that is desired of his or our hemisphere [?] of
life. U D.

(R. H. : I cannot more than a word or two at present. Do you wish our
friend here to go on now or do you wish to speak to me first T)

It is well. But I entered first for the purpose of restoring the light.
(R. H. : Ah, yes.) and clearing the way for his father who is with us +.
(R. H. : Yes, I understand.)

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix I.

335

I go now and peace be with thee and thine + I. S. D. (R. H. : Amen.)
(R. H. to S. : Imperator had to come in himself for the purpose of
restoring the light.)

[Rector writes.]

Rector : Good morrow, friends, we meet thee once more and all is as we
would have it. We assist his friends to return with clear thought. (R. H. :
Yes.)

Yes. All is well. [Hand moves as though seeking something.] (S. :
Want to feel something ?) [S. goes to get accordion.] James, James I am
here. My thoughts are clearer now and I know better than I did when I
left you before what you said to me.

(8. ; Yes, father, good morning.)

Good morning, James. I see you are better. I am happier for it.
Ther^sfcalLbe no veil between us. Wait patiently and all we talked of will
be made clear to you. Yes, my head seems clearer and I can see perfectly
. . . you. Oh yes. [The yon apparently intended to follow see.]

(8. : Yes.) [Excitement.]

I can see and hear better than ever. Your voice to me does not seem so
far away. I will come nearer day by day.

Annie and I both, and all that transpired between us whilst in . . I
was in the body I will refer to, that you may be sure it is I.

I remember very well indeed and what I said. I was most emphatic in
. . in my desire to know the truth and make you know it if possible.

8peak clearly, sir. Come over here [to Sp.] Yes.

Are you with James ? [to R. H.] (R. H. : Yes.)

Well, will you help me to return later if I wish to return ? If so, I will
try aud free my mind now.

(R. H. : I shall be very pleased to take messages to your son at any time
when Rector or other messenger can bring them.)

Well, I will not feel troubled then, because I can have no further talks
with him now. James, do you remember what . . the things I took out
west . . West . . .

(S. : Yes, father.) [Father moved "West" in the fall of 1889.—
J. H. H.]

Well, are they not for you . . . (8. : Some of them I think are.
What ones are for me ?)

I wish all the books, every one, and photos. (R. H. : Photos ?) (8. r
Pictures ?) painting, Picture . . . yes, every one of those of mine. I
took them out West, you remember. [Cf. p. 325.] (S. : Yes, I remember.)

I should have said that [?] I wished I would have had you have . .
d . . . them before now.

He speaks too rapidly, fearing he may forget something . . .
h . . had said all I wished.

Cannot you send for them. I am sure will . . will give them up.
(8. : Do you want one of the books to touch ? ) Yes, very much, my
diary, anything, diary . . . yes, or anything, any one of them. Give
me one, James, if possible. I have something on my mind. [Father kept
some sort of a journal which I may be able to find. I suspect that his
account book is meant here, which was like a ** diary." — J. H. H.]

Digitized by Google

336

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

(S. : Well, father, I have no book with me now, but I shall send one to
my friend here.) Yes, and it will help me when you are gone. [Caret below
</on«, are above it.]

I remember Himi [or Hime]. S (R. H. : Is that Hume ? )

(S. : Yes, that is right.)

Yes. Give it me. S***is[?]

Hurae[?]

hme[?]

(S. : Yes} that is right. Now one or two words after that.)

[Without having told me the seriousness of his condition, father all at
once sent me word to get him in New York the medicine known as
"Hyoraei." He had tried a great many patent medicines, and, having
failed to get relief, resolved to try " Hyomei," which he had seen favourably
advertised. It is a medicine procured from some medical plant, and is to
be inhaled. I sent it to him, and it was the only thing that ever gave him
any decided relief. — J. H. H.]

S nut [?] Sen-is doings [?] I cannot catch all now . . . life
• . . You know what is in my mind perfectly, James. I used to speak
of it often.

(S. : Yes, father, I know what you have in your mind. Do not worry
about that part which I did not get..)

I will give him all of them. (R. H. : 44 All of them ? ")
Yes, he says. Yes.

[He took a variety of patent medicines, and meditated getting others that
he did not take. (November 3rd, 1899.)— J. H. H.]

Do you remember the little knife I used to pick [written on top of page
already filled. Fresh sheet turned] I used . . pick out my nails with
- . . (S. : I am not sure, father.)

The little brown handle one. I had it in my vest waist coat [loaist super-
posed on vest as if to take its place] w . . pocket. . . . Wait, wait.
He says I had it in my vest, and then in coat pocket. You certainly
must remember it. [I remember nothing of this, and in fact am sure I
never knew of any such knife. — J. H. H.]

(S. : Was this after you went out West ?)

Yes. [See Note 14, p. 359.] 1 seem to lose [loose] part of my recollec-
tions between my absence and return, just before I had this change, and
the cap I used to wear, the cap . . . [I know nothing of this cap.—
J. H.H.]

+ [Imperator] [Writing becomes quieter.]

the cap I used to wear. And this I have lost, too. [See Note 15,
p. 360, and cf. pp. 387, 406.]

James, let me see some of my trifles . . trifles. They can do no harm
and may help me to recall well.

(S. : This, father, is the only thing I have with me.) [Accordion.]

I am clearer when I see it. What will it be when you come, too, James
. . . all music not imitation • . . where is my coat? I begin to
think of what I do not need.

I am coming nearer you see . . ne . . need . . and all the
things I ever owned are passing through my head at this moment. Get the

Appendix J.

337

pictures ; do you not want them, James ? (S. : Yes, father, I shall get them.)
I will be glad. I am thinking of Streine [?] Str. . Stri . . Strycn.

Speak. Speak. (S. : Well, father, is this Stryc ?)

Yes. (S. : Well what is the next letter ?)

N i a . . £ . . E . . Str.

Slower, sir. Slower my friend, do not speak so fast. I will help you.
Now slower, [to Sp.]

StR . . Strycnine.

(S. : Good, father, that is right.)

[In saying " that is right " I meant that he had succeeded in making
clear what was evident to both of us as we saw the writing going on, but we
wished to see it completed. I know nothing about his use of strychnine. I
do not think I obtained any of it when I got the Hyomei. There was
certainly no reason for asking me to get it in New York, as it was easily
obtainable at the drug stores in the small town in which he lived, while the
Hyomei was not. If I obtained strychnine for him in New York, of which I
have not the slightest recollection, I could obtain it only through a prescrip-
tion, and would not have known the name for it in pharmacy. If the fact of
its use by father be established and that he got it elsewhere also, then
the incident will be a good instance excluding ordinary telepathy as the
explanation of it. But if I did obtain it for him, as I feel very sure I did
not, the case would be amenable to the telepathic hypothesis, at least as a
possible explanation.— J. H. H.] [See Note 16, p. 360, Note 23, p. 365.]

He helped . . Helped . He told me I must answer your other
question first [£.e.,*Imperator told him to answer S.'s previous question
about the medicine. See previous sitting.]

Do you hear me . . my son? (S. : Yes, father, I hear you perfectly.) I
remember you went and got it for me. God bless you, James, he says. And
a numerous amount of other medicines [?] which I cannot * * [undec.]

+ thanks to thee, friend. All is well.

Ask Willie about the knife. [Name correct.]

(S. : Yes, father, I will ask Willie about it, but there is one other boy
who will know better than he.) I do not . . . George. [Name
correct. — J. H. H.] (S. : No, not George.) Rob. [Name correct.— J. H. H.]

Did you ask me to tell the other . . . Roberts [?] Robert.

(S. : That is good, father, but not the one. Yes, Robert is the right
name, but the one that will remember the knife is a younger boy.)

He will explain it to him and I will get his answer soon.

+ He is with him constantly. (R. H. to S. : That is, Imperator.)

Do you hear me . . what I told you about George. (S. : Yes, you mean
before ?) Yes. I . . . (S. : Yes. I remember.) I had a good deal
to think of there, James. (S. : Yes, father, you did.) And the least said
the sooner mended. Hear. [See Note 4, p. 348] (S. : Yes, father, I
hear.) Do you U D. (S. : Yes, father, I understand.)

I iiritt work now, and unceasingly as I can for him.

(R. H. : I think he means Imperator.) [Not correct, as him is spelt with
small h. — R. H.]

What . . . Cannot hear you ; do not hurry so. Do you mean
P . . .?

338

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

(S. to R. H. : Yes, I see. That's all right.) James.
(S. : Yes, father, I mean F., if you can tell the rest.)
Yes, I can remember very well. F R A D [?]

[There appears here an attempt to spell the name of my youngest brother.
This is much more apparent in the original writing at the sitting than could
be indicated in print, except by a reproduction of what is here printed as
tk D." In the original there are two lines which are like capital A without
the cross line, and so represent the first two strokes of capital "N," and to
these are added the curve which so strikingly resembles the letter "D."
The symbol might be taken as a poor attempt to make "N " and " K "
almost in one stroke. In fact it was written in one stroke, and the greater
resemblance to "D" in the final part of it is the decisive reason for re-
garding it as too imperfect an attempt at " N " and " K " to say that these
were undoubtedly meant. — J. H. H.]

F RE . .

It is my fault, not his, wait a moment. R.

My stomach . . Stomach . . . strange it does not trouble, isn't it ?
If one is full of distress how can one feel other than depressed, but not so
with you. I wish I could step in and hear you at college [colledge] [The
phrase is characteristic and the word " college" very pertinent. — J. H. H.]
and see all that disturbs you. I would write right . . soon right
things there for you. I had a will of my own . . . perhaps you will
remember.

(S. : Yes, father, I remember, but it was not a bad ijill.)

I am glad you think so. But if the rest had been like you, perhaps I
should have refused them anything . . . [R.H. reads over — hand
adds :] not. [This is very pertinent, and involves a suggestion of facts too
personal to publish, especially as it is connected with the reference to the
college just above. — J. H. H.] [Later events induced me to change this
purpose. See Note, pp. 402-405 (April 20th, 1901). -J. H. H.]
(S. : That's it. I know just what . . . )

But what I propose to do now, James, is to right matters to my own
liking . . liking . . especially with the boys. I assure you when I
can get so I can speak and say just what I like I will straighten out things
for you.

(R. H. : Rector, our friend here with me wrote out a few sentences to
read to his father. I think perhaps now would be a good time, if you will
ask him to listen calmly and quietly till his son James finishes reading.)

Yes, but let us say, friend, that he will only {at this period } be able to
receive it in fragments until I can go out and explain it to him.
Re Imperator] is with him, and will wait with me. R.
(R. H. : Yes. Do you think wiser to wait till just before we go ?)
Well, the better way would be to repeat now and . . .
i R. H. : Then later also.) [Strong assent.]
Yes. Thou art bright [light f) to hear me so well.
(R. H. : Say when ready.)
^ Give me something of his that I may hold him quite clearly. [Accordion

3, reads.]

xli.] Appendix I. 339

(Father, this is my last chance to talk with you until my friend asks me
to do so again. You will remember to communicate with him from time to
time, and I shall write to him to greet you whenever he sends word from
you. I have not asked many questions, nor reminded you of any important
facts, because doing so would be interpreted here on earth as suggesting the
answers themselves.)

Ah, yes ; I remember the difficulties. [Cf. p. 341, and Note 24,
p. 365.]

(Hence I have wished to let you tell your own story, so that I could go
before the world and prove more clearly the great truth which we have at
heart. You know it is the work of Christ, and you will remember that I
always said that I wished to live the life of Christ, even if I was not a
believer.)

Perfectly. Yes. That is surely James.

(To meet you, then, in this way, and to feel that you will farther help
me give mankind the great truth of immortal life)
With God's help I will, my boy.

(is an inspiration which you can well understand. Keep your mind
clenr, and, whenever you can or are permitted, tell to my friend later some
facts in your life or mine, and other members of the family, their names
and so forth. These will be sent to me and I can verify them and put them
on record. You will then do a good work on your side that will help me
with Christ's work on this side.)

[This passage was prepared beforehand with a distinct purpose. I
resolved to test first the memory of the communicator and second his
religious attitude. We had carried on a long correspondence in regard to
my apostasy from my early teaching, and he knew in life that I had taken
just the attitude here indicated. Moreover I had concealed my own name
and personal identity so thoroughly and avoided in all cases (unless we
except the mention of my Aunt Nannie to my sister) everything like the
suggestion of names or events that would lead to identification, that I was
curious to see what the response would be. It is certainly very striking, and
not leas so for its apparent memory of our past relations, on the one hand,
and for the manner in which the recognition takes place. Here the state-
ment, * 4 Perfectly, yes, that is surely James," is not made to me, but to
Rector, and owing to the nature of the machine it slips through to me, so
to speak. — J. H. H.] [Another interpretation of it may be that Rector
appreciated its importance and delivered it intentionally (April 18th, 1900).
—J. H. H.J

[Finis.]

Yes, I will, and unceasingly. You know my thoughts well, and you also
know what my desires were before entering this life . . enter . .

(S. to R. H. : Yes, that's an interesting word again.)

[I refer in this remark to what seems a departure from the spiritistic
lingo in the communicator's language. Father knew nothing about the
doctrine except in the vaguest way. He never came into contact with it,
never read any of its literature, and would know nothing of its lingo. But as
I had frequently noticed in the sittings expressions bearing the stamp of
acquaintance with its peculiar phraseology about death, I resolved to watch

Digitized byC?C?OgIe

340

J. H. Hydop, Pk.D.

[PAUT

for indications of departure from it and adoption of the more natural
phraseology characteristic of my father in life. I do not know the spirit is tie
lingo myself well enough to say positively that there is a deviation from it
here. But a very natural spiritistic phrase here would have beeu * * since
passing out," instead of " since entering this life." Hence in this case and
in one other in which the term " change " was used to express the same
idea, I wondered whether there was not a departure from the ordinary
spiritistic lingo. — J. H. H.]

and you also know whom I longed to meet and [not all read] what I
longed to do for you . . . whom he longed to meet, he says. [Read
correctly.] Yes, he says. [Cf. p. 389.]

(S. : Yes, father, I know well.)

Good. Keep it in mind, James, and I will push from this side whilst you
call from yours, and we will sooner or later come to a more complete U D.
(S. : Yes. I understand.)

[January 13th, 1900. — A phrase iu the above sentence recalls a passage
which I read at Mrs. Piper's trance on February 9th, 1897. It occurred in
a letter written at my request by a personal friend of Stainton Moses, with
the view of helping the latter in his communications. The passage is : "I
write this letter because it seems possible that we may thus meet across the
barrier, my pull perhaps helping your push. " See also the phrase used at
the sitting of June 6th, 1899 (p. 474), " pulling with my push," and note
the remark made by Mrs. Piper's "subliminal" on June 3rd, 1899 (p. 457\
" Stainton Moses helping Hyslop." — R. H.]

[I may also call attention here to the fact that in the sitting of June 7th,
1899, near the beginning (p. 478), my father specifically alludes to Stainton
Moses by name, giving, however, only the name Moses, as having been one
of the persons to whom he had communicated something after he had ceased
speaking to me at the end of the previous sitting of June 6th (p. 474).—
J. H. H.]

Go on. It helps me when I hear you speak, and will be of great advan-
tage [?] to me later when trying to speak with our friend here. Few, they
tell me, have had so good an opportunity as I have of returning so often, and
it has been [benf or bnef] of the greatest benefit to me . . benefit . .
and I will struggle on until my thoughts are all clear. And from my boyhood
to now . . boyhood . . I will recall every thing for you.

Go on I am waiting.

(S. : Yes, father, I have read all that I wished to read, and I shall bej
glad if you can recall and tell anything about a railroad collision.) [ExJ
citement.] I

Yes. I think I will, all about it, but do not ask me just yet, James . #
ask me just yet . . just yet.

[The reader will notice a singular absurd break here on my part, which
shows as much incoherence and irrelevancy as could ever be charged to «
discarnate spirit.— J. H. H.]

(S. : All right. I will not. Do you remember much of your reusrioui
life?)

Yes, I think I do, nearly everything, and my views, whereas they weri
not just correct in everything, yet they were more or less correct, and . J

Digitized by

XL!.]

Ajipendix I.

341

correct . . and I have found a great many things as I had pictured thein
in ray own earthly mind . . . Hear.
(S. : Yes, I hear.)

Since Christ came to the earthly world there has been a co . . almost
constant revelation of God and His power over all. (R. H. : Constant,
what is that ?) Revelation he . . he says. [This language is very charac-
teristic—J. H. H.]

What do you remember, James, of our talks about Swedenborg . . S.

(S. : I remember only that we talked about him.)

Do you remember of our talking one evening in the library of his . . .
Library . . . about [his] op . . [the d of description superposed on
op] description of the Bible ? (S. : No.) Several years ago. (S. : No, I do
not remember it.) his oppinion opinion of . . Spiritual seme . . his
description of its Spiritual sense . . Seme. (S. : No, I do not remember
that, but perhaps some one else in the family does.)

I am sure of our talks on the subject. It may have been with one of the
others, to be sure. In any case I shall soon be able to remember all about
it. I am so much nearer and so much clearer now than when I vaguely saw
you here . . when [not read above] . . and when Charles tried to wake
me up here and . . Do you hear me ?

[This whole incident about Swedenborg is too vague to me for any
claims to interest or significance. I have only the vaguest recollection that
I ever talked to him about Swedenborg, and I am not confident enough of
this to trust even myself in the matter, unless some one else can refreshen
my memory. If anyone had asked me whether father had ever known any-
thing about Swedenborg, I should have answered No with a great deal of
confidence. It is possible that in the conversation with him, to which I
have referred, some discussion of Swedenborg may have occurred, and I
have an impression that it did. But I fear that my memory on this point is
worthless, and that it is but an impression that the talk was a possible
one.— J. H. H.] [See Note 17, p. 361 and pp. 31, 370.]

After a while I will repeat my views. I am glad you have not given
me any suggestions for your sake, but it has perplexed me a little, and at
times seemed unlike yourself. I faintly recall the . . faintly recall the
. . trouble on the subject of spirit-return. Hear. [Cf. p. 339.] (S. :
Yes, I hear.) I and I see and U D now.

(S. : Yes, I understand, and do you know where it was, and who were
with us?)

He seems not to U D your quesn [?] [Not all read.]
1 do ... he says. I do not U D your question, James.
(S. : Yes, father, you spoke about our talk about spirit-return, and I
asked if you could remember the persons who were with us at the time, and
when it was.) I think, if I remember rightly, it was in New York. [Not
correct. Father never saw New York after I went there to live.] [I had
discussed the subject briefly in some of my letters from New York, especially
at the time I sent him the Proceedings to read (November 3rd, 1899). —
J. H. H.]

(S. : No, it was not in New York. But two other persons were present
at the time.) Yes, well it will all come back to me, and I will, if not to you,

342

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

give it to our friend. (S. : Yes, that is right, father. Do you wish to be
remembered to any others in the family ?) Yes, all of whom I have given
mention, and * * [two or three letters undec] . . al . . all and
I think I have not left out any one . . one . . have I, James? (S. :
Yes, father, you've left out one I think you would be very glad to mention.)
Did you say one . . . yes . . . do. . .

(S. : Yes. I said one. Not the children.) No, I think I have sent all
except sister. (S. : Yes, I think perhaps you are right. One thing I had
not understood. Now which sister is this ?) I mean Nan. R [P?] [followed
by one or two other letters undec.] Mannie. (S. : Yes, that is right
exactly.)

Give my love to her, of course, and if you knew my feeling at this
moment you would be pleased. She teas one of the best . . . (S. : Yes,
father, I know how you feel about it.) [Cf. p. 451.]

I am glad and free . . and free, oh glad I am, a more faithful one
[? interpreted at the time as son] never lived. (S. : Thank you father for
that.) Itisjustand . . . (S. : It is just like him.) right.

[My remark here was based on the original reading of the word " one " for
* ' son. " The note, therefore, which followed at the time explaining its fitness
has been expunged. The statement, however, under the latter has as much
pertinence as ever, though its reference is not to myself and though it be
non-evidential as before. It is applicable to both my auut Nannie and my
stepmother, but much more specifically to the latter. There is some
uncertainty as to which is meant in the passage. But there are several facts
which suggest a preference for my stepmother. (1) The word "sister" used
just previously would apply equally to my sister who had not been
mentioned, especially if we suppose that father had failed to express all
that he tried to say, especially also if we suppose that "Nan," which is
immediately changed to "Mannie," is an attempt to say "Maggie." (2)
The name " Mannie " is as much an approximation to " Maggie," that of my
stepmother, as to that of my aunt Nannie (0/. p. 343). The specific
discrimination of my aunt Eliza's sorrow in the same passage (see below), as
if not recognising the revelancy of the allusion to the other person in mind,
is particularly pertinent in three respects, on the interpretation that the
" Mannie " refers to my stepmother. First there is the specific selection of
" Eliza in her sorrow," as if she were not included with the other in mind.
Second, the discrimination is in agreement with facts suggesting a reason for
it (Of. p. 363). Third, the previous reference to this aunt's sorrow (p. 316)
was appropriately connected with the recognition of the same grief in my
aunt Nannie. Hence the preponderance of psychological evidence is here in
favour of the reference to my stepmother (May 20th, 1900).— J. H. H.]

Tell Eliza too. (S. : Yes. I shall most certainly.) both . . Both. (8.:
Yes. I shall tell both very gladly.)

And tell them to believe and trust in God always, [This is perfectly
aracteristic. — J. H. H.] and I will often bring comfort to Eliza iu her

row. [This allusion has very great interest, but I shall not comment on

™.til later.— J. H. EL]

: What . . .) I will tell you, friend, all about it after James is
perposed on the is as if to take its place] gone. (R. H. : Very good.

xu.]

Appendix I.

343

I shall be pleased.) I have seen him and will tell you all. (R. H. : I shall
take all you tell me with much pleasure.) (S. : Thank you, father.)

Do you remember the glasses ? (S. : What glasses ?) [I had one pair of
his glasses, and I think my stepmother had the other, but I wanted to
know more here.— J. H. H.]

and where they are ? She has them I think.

(S. : Yes. Who has them?) Nani. (S. to R. H. : Not quite.) (8. :
No, not Nannie.) Ant (S. : What glasses did you ask about?) M . . nni
[Interpreted at the time as mine.] (S. : Tes, father, I remember them.
Whom did you leave them with i With whom did you leave them ?)

I am thinking. It was Eliza, [Correct. He died at her house and
left his glasses there.- J. H. H.]

I do not think I said just right.

(R. H. : He's getting dizzy.)

I will think U aver. [See Note 25, p. 365.]

(R. H. : Rector, perhaps he had better stop now ?) + [Imperator.]

He longs to remain with him, but + is taking him away.

(R. H. to S. : Better say good-bye. Better get that ready to read over
again to Rector. )

And I will take thy message to him, friend, if thou wilt give it me.

(S. to R. H. : Tell me when.) (R. H. to S. : Oh, if you want to say
good-bye to your father, better say it now. )

James, good-bye, my boy.

(S. : Good-bye, father. I hope I can see you again.)
Be faithful to yourself and your Aunts, James, and do not worry about
anything.

(S. : No, father, I shall not worry about anything.)

If you will do this . . if you . . all will be as I would have it.

(S. : Yes, father, I believe it, and I shall do my best.)

He is going . . . give me thy message.

(R. H. : Rector, will you have the message now, or first let me ask about
the next arrangement for sitters ?) 4- [Imperator.]

Will have thee give it to me just before I go. (R. H. : Yes.)

(R. H. : Mrs. D. is anxious to see you.) But we have arranged to meet
her next time. (R. H. : Yes, I thought so, but was not absolutely sure.
After that what do you wish?) We desire to meet thee on . . .
immediately we . . after we . . . yes unless . . .

(R. H. : To-morrow Mrs. D„ next day myself, and then we can
arrange further details.) + Well. Had it not been for Him we could
not have helped this . . . [new communicator] (R. H. : Yes, I under-
stand.)

Bat, friend, thou knowest not the food which . . food . . lteth
in store for thee regarding this new communicator. He is all that is good
and trite. (R. H. : I am delighted to hear that you are pleased with him.)
[Cross in air.]

(R H. : Shall he . . .) speak. (R H. : Shall my friend now read his
message T) Yes He is waiting to take it to his father, who is standing beside
him now.

[S. reads again the statement given above, p. 339.]

344

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Amen. James, go forth, my son, in perfect peace with the world and God

who governs all things wisely . . wisely . . and I will be faithful to

you until we meet face to face in this world.

(R. II. : Amen.) [This is very like father.— J. H. H.]

We cannot possibly hold the light, it is going out and we must go with it.

Friend, we have met with joy, and we depart with . . in like manner.

Fear not, God is . . is . . ever thy guide, and He will never fail thee.

(R. H. : Amen.) We cease now, and may His blessings rest on thee.

+ {R} (R. H. : Amen.)

[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]
Mrs. P., as she began to come out of the trance, first uttered indistinctly
"Hyslop," and then said also indistinctly, "Robert Hyslop." This, of
course, was the name of my father. — J. H. H.

Additional Notes on Sittings of December 2Srdt 24<A, 26<A, 27th, 1898.

(Note 1.)

New York, April 26&, 1899.
Apropos of the statements made at the beginning of the present report
regarding the precautions taken for secrecy and the extent to which they
were fulfilled, the following incidents are of some importance, at least to the
would-be critic, in the case. The precautions were designed to shut out
absolutely everybody from a knowledge of my intentions except Dr. Hodgson
and myself. As a matter of fact this was effected, though there was one
little mishap that might have led to discovery and mistake in the realisation
of this purpose. I had carrried on my corres|>ondonce regarding the sittings
directly with Dr. Hodgson at his residential address, and not at the office,
so as to exclude all knowledge of my purpose from the Assistant-Secretary
of the Branch, Miss Edmunds. This I did not at all feel necessary, but only
wanted to be able to say that it was a fact in order to satisfy the naturally
scrupulous and cautious scientist. But after getting the promise of sittings
at some future date I wrote a short letter to Dr. Hodgson, and from mere
habit, after actually looking up Dr. Hodgson's house address, made the
mistake of writing the office address, and the letter was opened by Miss
Edmunds, as she usually opened the official mail. I had been careful to cut
off all headlines that might lead to my immediate identification by any oue
not in the office and who did not know me either by name or personally.
My signature was attached to the letter. The letter was sent to Dr.
Hodgson apparently without reading it though after opening. The following
is an exact copy of the letter without the omission of a word or sign.

November 13th, 1898.
My dear Hodgson, — I have not been at the college since Friday, and do
not know what mail will be awaiting me there when I go down to-morrow.
But I do not wait to ascertain this until I write asking that you tell me by
return mail, if you have not already written me, whether I am to have the

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix I.

345

sittings for the dates mentioned some time ago. I wish to make final
arrangements for the trip. You will have to tell me when and where to

It had been intended originally to have the sittings earlier than the date
actually fixed on at last. But as soon as Dr. Hodgson received the above
note he returned it with his reply, calling my attention to my mistake.
Nevertheless I withheld more carefully than ever all further intimation of
oiy intentions, and when I went on to Boston during the holidays for the
sittings and was taken to the office, before introducing me to Miss Edmunds,
with whom I had frequently corresponded in his absence, but whom I had
never met, I said to Dr. Hodgson that I was not acquainted with Miss
Edmunds, but that she probably knew my intentions from that mistake in
my letter. But he decided with my advice nevertheless to introduce me to
her under his regular pseudonym, Mr. Smith, and did so with the jovial
remark, 4 'Another Mr. Smith," and added : "Perhaps you know him, Miss
Edmunds." She replied that she did not, and I reservedly added that I
had never met her. She then spoke up : " Oh, is this Professor Hyslop ? "
As the cat was out of the bag I said : " Yes, but I intended to keep the fact
a secret, but as you saw my letter referring to my intentions I may as well
confess." " No," she said, " I did not see any letter, but as we were going
over the copy in the office this morning it flashed over my mind that the
stranger called " the four times friend " was Professor Hyslop, but I did

not remark the fact to Miss S (assistant) until about an hour ago. But

it was only a guess, as I did not know you were going to have sittings. I
simply remarked to her that I wondered why Professor Hyslop would not
like to have some sittings, as he is interested in them." But as my letter
had been opened by Miss Edmunds in pursuance of her custom, I deemed it
best to have her statement regarding her knowledge of my sittings to be put
on record with my report. I therefore wrote her to explain her relation
to the question, and to state what she knew of my intentions. The following
is her reply : —

Dear Professor Hyslop, — I can give no distinct reason why I guessed
that you were "The Four Days Friend," as I certainly had not reasoned it
out, but thought that I had guessed it from reading allusions in the sittings
to " The Four Days Friend."

On first reading your letter of January 8th, I remembored nothing of the
letter you refer to, but on talking it over with Dr. Hodgson, I dimly
remember opening a letter from you addressed to Dr. Hodgson, some time
ago, which I thought might contain something I could attend to, Dr. Hodg-
son being busy, and not often at the office. Since his return from England
I have, in fact, opened most letters, but I usually put aside yours, Dr.
Newbold's, and those from any one whom I know to be a personal friend.

This special letter has, however, made so little impression on me that it
is quite likely I did not read it, but simply glanced at it hurriedly, and put
it aside as something that I could not answer or help in. What my "subli-
minal " may have caught from that hasty glance, I cannot now, of course,

meet you. — Yours as ever,

J. H. Hyslop.

5, Boylston Place, Boston, Mass., January 12f/i, 1899.

346

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

account for. Soon after the return of Dr. Hodgson I remember your send-
ing one or more letters addressed to him containing references to cases such
as Mrs. D., about which he did not know, and this probably accounted for
my opening that letter. Also when he first returned, I opened more letters
than I do now because he was away from Boston for the first two months,
and this special letter I simply left in his desk (or else forwarded it to Bar
Harbour, I do not know which) and he has made no remark about it until
now, when I showed him your letter of the 8th inst.

Another unconscious factor leading to the guess may have been that
when you wrote me during the summer to engage sittings 44 for a friend," I
thought it not unlikely that the 44 friend " was yourself ; but I did not men-
tion this to any one and thought no more of it.

I mentioned to no one outside the office my "guess" of 44 The Four
Days Friend," but on the day of your arrival, and just before you came in

with Dr. Hodgson, I remarked to Miss S , our stenographer, "I guess

4 The Four Days Friend ' to be Professor Hyslop." Less than an hour after
this you entered, and you will remember that, before guessing you to be
Professor Hyslop, I asked whether you were 44 The Four Days Friend, 99 and
was told 44yes." "Then," I said, 44 it is Professor Hyslop."

As I knew Miss S. would copy the sittings and would be sure to over-
hear something, and would know that you were in Boston, I thought it
would do no harm to mention my guess to her. She also remembers my once
remarking to Miss [Printer's mistake for Dr.] Hodgson, 44 1 should think
Professor Hyslop would want sittings," and Dr. Hodgson was absolutely
indifferent about it. He has, in fact, given no hint.

Since your Fonim and Independent articles, it seemed in the natural
order of things that you should want some sittings.

All this may not be very clear, but it is absolutely all I can think of to
the minutest detail, and it is needless to say that I have used guess in the
purely English sense of the word. — Yours sincerely,

It is important to mention for the benefit of the reader that the intro-
ductory remarks and notes about the incidents at the close of the sittings
when Mrs. Piper was coming out of the trance were written immediately
after the sittings while they were perfectly clear to memory. Indeed in
most cases full notes were taken at the time, and had only to bo sup-
plemented by additional incidents from memory. I postponed absolutely
nothing but the interpretation of the messages any longer than was possible,
so that no intervening duties and thoughts occurred to disturb the accuracy
of the account as it stands. Some of the notes in regard to the truth or
falsity of the facts were written after my return to New York, but I was
exceedingly careful not to wait until so late a time to write anything that
involved a memory, for more than five or six hours, of incidents at the
sittings. The record shows a complete account of everything said or
written at the sitting except my observations of incidents in regard to the

Lucy Edmunds.

(Note 2.)

New York, January 15th, 1899.

XLI.]

Ajypendix I.

347

trance, which were written down from copious notes and memory
immediately after returning to Boston, including as I have said, what Mrs.
Piper said as she came out of the trance. This account will therefore be
found accurate and full, and without any defects that might otherwise mar
the impression to be made by the record. Nothing is omitted which tho
critic might desire to know. — J. H. H.

Yesterday I took the manuscript copies of my sittings to one of the aunts
who were mentioned in the sittings by my father. Her prejudices are all
against this sort of work, and she has always warned me away from
spiritualism, so that I did not expect to receive any favourable attention .
I was surprised when I had read the accounts over to her to find that they
impressed her so strongly that she admitted at once and without indication
of my own attitude toward them the force of the claim for their spiritistic
character. She remarked, however, in a somewhat reluctant way, too, that
she did not wish to commit herself in writing to that view, though she was
apparently willing to hold it personally. The thought was that I was
desiring to have this conclusion supported by her opinion of the incidents'
But I explained that I wished only to have her impressions as to the
pertinence of the facts to such a supposition and her corroboration of the
personal and characteristic features of the communicator purporting to be
my father. These were accorded with frankness, and some light was thrown
by her upon some incidents of which I knew nothing and some which, if I
ever knew them, were wholly forgotten. But her recognition of the
vraimmMcmee to my father was distinct and emphatic, much more so than I
had expected, considering the strong prejudices which she had and has
always had against spiritualism. I expected a perfectly deaf ear to the
whole subject, and such an attitude of contempt as would somewhat throw
discredit upon my judgment on this point, and so was prepared for a
setback. I was therefore agreeably disappointed in this result. As an
indication of the real impression upon her mind, I may narrate the following
interesting incident in which her conviction was unconsciously betrayed with
some force. After my remark that I did not expect her to commit herself
to the spiritistic view, I said that there was a loophole for getting out of it,
and mentioned the telepathic hypothesis, which I explained, and of which
she had known something from past conversations when I had rejected the
spiritistic theory on the ground of telepathy. For a moment she under-
stood that I was advancing that theory here to explain the spiritistic
view away, and she showed some mental resistance to this procedure.
But when I remarked that I did not accept the ability of the telepathic
theory to explain away the spiritistic theory, except on the assumption
of such gigantic suppositions that it would strain any credulity to believe,
she showed a decided welcome to my position, and expressed voluntarily
her preference for the idea of communication with departed spirits. I
was amazed at the readiness to accept such a position after the smilr

(Note 3.)

New York, January l&thy 1899.

348

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

and half sneers of the past when I had tolerated that theory as a possible
alternative to telepathy, and more especially after the repeated warnings
given me in regard to spiritualism.

From her I received also some corroboration of important incidents and,
in addition to this, facts which indicate that significance attaches to certain
statements in the sittings which I had thought were a part of the automatism
that awakens suspicion of the whole thing. I shall explain this matter on
a separate sheet. — J. H. H.

May 24/a, 1899.

P.S. — In the sitting of December 20th there is a curious fact upon which
I did not comment when I wrote the above, but I had my attention called to
it yesterday when reading ray report over. The phrase is " Give my love
and tell (?) sister Annie tells her . . . Anna not Anna but Annie. I
am your sister." Now I learned from my Aunt Nannie in Philadelphia
when I read the account to her that my sister was christened Anna, not
Annie, and that my mother always insisted on calling her Anna, and corrected
it when pronounced Annie by any one. This fact was spontaneously
mentioned to me by my aunt. I have no conscious recollection either of my
mother's interest in this matter or whether we were in the habit of calling
her Anna rather than Annie.— J. H. H.

(Note 4.)

New York, January 15ft» 1899.
There are four different phrases in the record which struck my aunt on
reading it as quite characteristic of my father. Many other statements were
recognised as characteristic of him in sentiment, but these four phrases were
identified as such and without reference to sentiment. The first of these is
the phrase, 4 4 Well, I was not so far wrong after all," which occurred in the
second sitting while referring to my conversation with my father on the
subject of psychical research. The next instance is the phrase 44 own
ideas" used in the second sitting in reference to the same fact. This
instance has less significance than the former, because it is less individual,
though it represents the choice of expression which my father would make
*hen othera might take 44 opinions" in preference. The third illustration
It thii biblical quotation, 4 ' What is their loss is our gain," in the second
sitting. Kvvn the plural pronoun is pertinent here. My aunt confirms my
trap remit m tlmi. the phrase was characteristic of father. This might be true
q! ii i:my uthuM rit the same time, but it was so characteristic of him and his
intimate family relations in just such connections as are indicated here that
the pi j rase in striking. The same can be said of the phrase 4 4 Seek and you
shall find " in the third sitting, just after promising to do all he could to
rtstiafy my object in these sittings and just as the sitting was coming to a
Thin makes a fifth, and I might add a sixth, 4 4 Tell them to believe
i in God always " near the close of the fourth sitting when asking
remembered apparently to his sisters, but probably to the sister
rind my stepmother. This instance my aunt recognised
characteristic, both for its pertinence and for its

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix I.

349

resemblance to father's habit in circumstances such as are indicated here.
Both aunts had recently lost their husbands, and though only one of them
is distinctly alluded to, and this not the husband of the one who recognises
the characteristic nature of the phrase, the expression and the situation
were just what father would appropriate in this manner, and my aunt
attests that this was father's mode of speech or writing in such situations.
I remember the same myself as frequent enough, but after my scepticism it
was not so often that it was used to me.

But the instance of most interest is the one which I intended to regard as
the fourth, and of which I knew nothing as characteristic of father until my
aunt indicated the fact. It is the phrase, " And the least said the sooner
mendod," in the fourth sitting when referring to affairs connected with my
hrother. The history of the expression is as follows. My aunt says that the
phrase was a constant one with her father, and that he taught it to his wife,
who did not use it at first, and that it became a family expression to mean
that certain things had not better be talked about too freely, because they
might give trouble, especially in matters that were in danger of becoming
gossip. I myself never used the phrase, and it struck me as so odd here that
I did not see its meaning at all in this connection, and hence did not catch
its pertinence until its characteristic nature was remarked by my aunt. In
this light and with her statement regarding the use of the expression in their
family I see a remarkable pertinence in its use here when referring to the
friction with my brother. It also throws light upon the expression a little
later (p. 337) which Dr. Hodgson thought a mistake, namely, 44 for him,"
which, if it meant Imperator, ought to have been spelled with capitals as is
usual. But evidently it refers to my brother. But, aside from this reference
and pertinent allusion, the most important thing under consideration at
present is the characteristic nature of the expression and its history
beyond my knowledge at the time. I cannot recall ever hearing father
use it. It is possible that I have heard its use by him, but I am certain
that I have not heard it frequently enough to think it characteristic of him.
This judgment is borne out by the unintelligible nature of the expression
until explained to me by my aunt. — J. H. H.

There are some incidents in the sittings that have taken on a meaning
which they could not have at the time owing to my ignorance of the facts
necessary to understand them. These facts I found out from my aunt when
I showed her the record.

In the first sittiug the first name announced was Margaret, which, as I said
at the time, I thought was the name of my oldest sister. This I find is
correct. I do not recollect her, as she died when I was only two years old.
In connection with her name was mentioned 44 Lillie," which had no mean-
ing for me. This could possibly be taken as an attempt to give the name of
my twin sister, whom I do not remember and who died when two years
old. [I have since ascertained that this twin sister was only four moutv

(Note 5.)

New York, January 15*A, 1899.

350

J. H. Hyslojh PhD.

[part

old when she died]. Her name was Sarah Luella. I could not and should
not put this possible interpretation upon it were it not for what my sister
Annie said in the third sitting when she came in to ask about the lock of
hair and pictures. The record (p. 331) shows the question 44 Do you know
who Sarah is . . . Annie." This 4 * Sarah" had no meaning for me
whatever, and I thought it a part of the nonsense which is so common with
mediumistic phenomena, until the correctness of the name was indicated by
my aunt, who said that this was the name of my twin sister. The whole
passage becomes perfectly intelligible with the supposition that this sister
is meant. I now wonder whether this same person was meant in the first
sitting when my brother Charles referred to 44 one who is nearer to you than
all the rest of us," and which had no meaning to me then.

In this same passage previously my brother Charles had said that he
had suffered from typhoid fever. This, as I recorded at the time, was
false, and I thought that the same verdict should be passed upon the state-
ment of the trouble with the throat, and that it had taken him 44 over here."
But I find from my aunt that he suffered with a very putrid sore throat
while he had the scarlet fever, and that he was sick only four days. There
is no one living that could say anything more about the expression, 4 4 because
the membrane formed in my throat." The phrase is pertinent, however,
and probably states a fact, as the scarlet fever was of a very malignant
form. There is no one also to attest the relevancy of the reference to the
trouble with his head. This might be true of any sickness. I have a very
faint recollection of the sore throat, and none at all of the length of his
sickness.

In the first sitting also there was an apparent reference to the name
44 Corrie " which I could not read, and when it occurred to me that 44 Mary "
was meant I asked if this was the name. The answer was in the affirmative
and added that she was my father's sister. I knew nothing about this and
supposed that it had no pertinence. But I have found from my aunt that
her oldest sister's name was Mary. I had never heard her called this,
and, in fact, she died before I knew her. I had always heard her called
Amanda. Her name was Mary Amanda. The reforence to 44 Elizabeth"
also had no meaning to me at the sitting, but I learned from my aunt that
my mother had a sister by the name of Eliza, who died when my mother
was very young. There is only the specification of the relationship here to
indicate the possibility in the name. Perhaps, also, the 44 Corrie" men-
tioned was an attempt to give the name of my aunt Cornelia, also my
mother's sister still living, and whom we always called aunt Cora. See
sitting of June 1st (p. 452), where a closer approach to the name is made.
—J. H. H.

(Note 6.)

New York, March 26th, 1899.
T Rent the manuscript of my first four sittings to be read by my step-
mother and brother with the request that they make any comments they
desired, confirmatory or derogatory of the facts presented in the record.
My first letter was misunderstood by my stepmother, she thinking that I
had asked for an expression of opinion as to the genuineness of the case

Digitized by

ill]

Appendix I,

351

and its spiritistic character, though I was careful to say that I wanted
nothing but a statement as to what was and what was not fact in the record.
In her reply, after answering some questions that pertain to later sittings,
she wrote as follows : 44 As to making any comments, it is too mystical.
There are some striking things, but I cannot help thinking that there is
fraud in it. I do not want to comment on anything that I know so little
about. I will give you all the information I can, but many things in the
sittings seem like guess-work. One thing I know is this : Your father's
affection for you always remained firm. One of his marks of affectiou was
to reprove when he thought one went astray. As he grew older and more
helpless he seemed to rely on you more than on any of the other children.
I hope your mind will become clear on the important subject you are
investigating."

I wrote in reply to this that I did not wish any expression of opinion on
the merits of the work, and that I regarded a severely sceptical attitude of
mind the proper one to take regarding the explanation of the case, but that
my object was mainly to have the facts confirmed or denied. I further
advised her not at any time to form opinions as to explanations, but to
critically scrutinise the alleged facts, and say what she could for or against
them simply as facts. The following is the response to this.

My dear James, — In going over the report again I can corroborate most
of your comments. On page 313 of December 24th, the recognition of
your presence seems quite natural, and on page 318 44 1 was not so far
wrong after all " is his language. December 26th, on page 325, there
is language that sounds like his, 44 That, if I remember rightly, was the
one great question which we talked over."

Another expression on page 333, 44 Only trust in all that is good, James,
and be contented, etc." But most of the language has very little meaning
that I can see. Frank has made comments more fully— so I will just
corroborate yours. — Affectionately, Mother

My brother, whose education qualified him to speak with more intelli-
gence of the case, especially as he had read two of the reports on it, wrote
me at first, in reply to my request, that he would wait for a better under-
standing of what was wanted, and this was explained as indicated above.
But he commented in advance as follows. It must be remembered that I
did not explain to him anything about the sittings or the persons supposed
to be represented in them. Hence the pertinence of his interpretation of the
incidents will be evident at a glance. 44 In the sitting of December 24th,
pages 315 and 318, "he says, 44 is it supposed to be father or uncle James
Carruthers who is talking ? I do not see that I can make any comments of
any material value. You remember I left Delphi in the August of the year
previous to father's death. So I did not see him for almost a year, so that
the larger part of the things spoken of I know nothing about. Some of the
expressions, as for example in the sitting of December 24th, page 315, 4 1
would not return for . . . music, flowers, drives, etc.,1 do not seem like
what father would use. I need not point out others, for you will recognise

Bloomington, Ind., March 23rd, 1899.

352

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

them as readily as I. I have read the reports all carefully and do not find any
statements that I know to be false other than those you have marked as such."

In reply to my explanation that I wanted only such confirmation or
denial of facts as suggested themselves to him, my brother answers as
follows : —

Bloomington, Ind., March 22nd, 1899.

My dear Brother James, — In regard to the first sitting I do not think
it worth while to make any particular comments. In the other sittings many
of the expressions used are very like those that father used in his conversa-
tion and correspondence, while others seem very unnatural for him to use.

In the sitting of December 24th, the narrative on pages 313 and 314 is
all very natural to father in tone and expression. When starting to meet
some one at the door or yard gate he would often say : 4 * Give me my hat"
(page 313). From page 314 to 316 it is more like uncle James Carruthers
than father.

I do not remember father to have used the expression 44 the girls" in
speaking of his sisters, as on page 316. 44 What is their loss?*' etc. was
a common expression of father's. Page 317 is very natural, especially the
expression 44 stick to this" ; and page 318, 44 My toy, I remember, " etc. ;
page 318, 44 you had your own ideas " ; page 320, 44 Everything in life," etc.

I have known father more than once to express to me and others his
pride in your attainments, and at the same time deprecate your scepticism.
Page 321, 4% I know well," etc., is very natural.

In the sitting for December 26th there is nothing that calls for comment
other than what you have made until we reach page 332. Here the
expression 44 Now out with it, James " is very natural to father. But the
following, 4 4 Do you hear her sing ? "l seems strange for him. On page 333,
4 4 It does not pay " was his common expression ; page 333, 44 will one day be
reunited with us and we shall meet face to face "is father's form of
expression for this thought. Page 334, 44 Seek and ye shall find "was
a frequent expression of his.

In the sitting of December 27th, page 335, 44 There shall be no veil,
etc.," is natural to father. Page 336— Father had a little brown handled
knife, but I did not know him to carry it in his vest or coat pocket.
He had a cap which he wore for a nightcap perhaps two or three times.

Page 336, 4 4 James, let me see some of my trifles. They can do no
harm," etc., does not seem natural.1 The narrative on pages 337, 338, 339,
340 is very natural in tone and expression. Page 341— Father did not
commonly refer to any part of the house as 44 the library." Page 341
seems foreign in language and thought. Page 342 is very lifelike,
especially the advice to 44 trust in God always." Page 343, 44 If you will do
—all will be as I would have it," is his form of expression.

The expressions to which I have directed attention, with the exceptions
noted, are very like what father commonly used in his conversation and
correspondence. — Yours as ever, Frank E. Hyslop.

1 The statement about the singing and the request for trifles my brother does not
understand, and it is not surprising that they seem unnatural. The second is a
request for some article to be given the medium, and the first is one of the automatisms
which are quite frequent in these sittings.— J. H. H.

Digitized by

Google

xu.]

Appendix I.

353

(Note 7.)

New York, April V?thy 1899.

l*he following notes represent the results of my later inquiries as well as
some of the earlier ones which have not yet been worked up. I made my
inquiries at once after the sittings and preserved the replies which are now
summarised and recorded. The inquiries were made without telling the
parties what my experiments had been, though they were surmised from the
nature of my questions. But I carefully concealed the nature of the
incidents which I wished to have corroborated or denied. This was especially
the case with the incident about the brown handled knife which was
corroborated in regard to its separate details and without the slightest hint
regarding the facts stated in the sittings.

The first incident relates to the communication that evidently purports
to come from an uncle of mine that had died after I made arrangements for
my sittings. While making the notes to the second sitting and whilst in
Boston I wrote to my aunt the following letter apropos of the reference to
my uncle by Mrs. Piper. This was before the third sitting was held.

Boston, Mass., December 24th, 1898.

My dear Aunt, — Did you see Uncle James C recently in your

sleep ? Or did you dream of seeing him ? Write to me at once in New
York. — Yours as ever,

J. H. Hyslop.

The following was the reply I received, omitting those parts which are
advice to me to abstain from the investigation which my aunt had surmised
I was engaged in.

Xenia, Ohio, December- 27th, 1898.

My dear Nephew, — Yours received this morning and in answer will say,
I have neither seen him in my sleep nor dreamed of seeing him, but really I
cannot see the difference. It is said those whom you think the most about
you do not dream of them. I have never but once dreamed of your father
and I am sure I have thought of him often, and your uncle James is seldom
from my mind in my waking hours.

I send you this, not knowing why you need it. I have no faith in
spiritualism, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit is what I seek . . . ,—
Loving^, E. A. C

This letter I received on the morning of the 28th, and on the same
morning I wrote the following second inquiry : —

519, West 149th Street, New York, December 2&th, 1898.

My dear Aunt. — Please to answer the following question at once : Did

Uncle C and you have walks, drives and book-reading together, which

you used to enjoy with each other, and did he enjoy musio greatly ? — Yours

*sever» J. H, Hyslop.

The following was the answer to this inquiry, but not dated. It is post-
marked, however, " Xenia, Ohio, "Dec. 30, 3.30 p.m., '98," and received by
rue on the 31st.

Digitized

byG£>6gle

354

J. H. Hyslap, Ph.D.

[PAIM

My dear James. — We did have many walks, drives and book- reading
together, particularly the Sabbath -school lessons. He enjoyed music, but
could not sing. He always sang at worship and when I would be up lie
would be down. Yet he enjoyed music from others.— Lovingly,

This latter in the main corroborates the incidents for which inquiry was
made, though they may not have the weight desirable in the case. Knowing
ray uncle and his life as I did I myself must attach some value to them.
The incidents mentioned are not so common in family life in the region
where he lived, however common they might be for mankind at large, and
appear to be specific matters of taste and habit in the actual life of the
alleged communicator. I was absolutely ignorant of them. I knew that my
uncle had a piano in his house and that his daughter played on it, but I
would never have supposed that he was fond of music, as I never heard the
instrument played in his home more than a few times. I might have sur-
mised that he liked music, but I would not have guessed that he was in the
habit of taking drives, walks, and engaging in book-reading with my aunt as
a special pleasure. His life was a comparatively busy one in a small country

When I began to write these notes on April 9th I soon observed that the
passage that I had interpreted as from my uncle might be partly a message
from my father. I was struck first with the statement of my aunt that she
had seen father in her dream, and this without any inquiry from me to know
whether she had or not. I re-read the whole passage carefully which had
always puzzled me on account of its apparent origin from my father in ho far
as the continuity of the messages was concerned, but also seemed to represent
at a sudden st igo of the communications the incidents in the life of my uncle
which did not characterise my father's habits. That is to say, I could never
assure myself whether the narrative applied wholly to my uncle or partly t<>
ray father and partly to my uncle. The first person is used in both cases,
so that it would seem we should make it all hang together. The interesting
fact creating a suspicion of this procedure is that my father also died in the
same house, so that some of the language that would otherwise be un-
doubtedly interpreted as referring only to my uncle could also apply to my
father. For example, the reference to leaving my aunt. But there is no
special reason for this statement on the part of my father, except an
automatism, as it would be so natural for my uncle to say this in reference
to his wife. The two things in favour of its being my father are (1) the fact
that the alleged communicator was my father up to the mention of my
aunt's name (Eliza), and there was no hint of a change of communicator, (2)
the traces of automatism just after the mention of my aunt's having seen
the communicator in sleep. A change of communicator often takes place at
such times, and there was here time to have another take the place of the
person thus swooning. The only external fact favoring this interpretation
is that my aunt actually saw my father in a dream as here stated of the
communicator, which I found was not true of my uncle. But aside from
this actual coincidence and the circumstance of ewooning, as we describe it,
the whole narrative would also apply to my uncle as well. Nor would the

E. A. C

town.

XLI.]

Appendix I.

355

manner of addressing me by name alter this interpretation, as my uncle
called me always by the same name as did my father here. But I wrote
nevertheless to my aunt after this second examination of the passages and
asked her to describe the dream in its details as she could remember it. I
obtained the following reply to my inquiries.

My dear James, — Yours received and at your request I proceed to answer
according to the best of my ability and memory.

I saw your father in some strange place at one of the old picnics which
y »u know he so much enjoyed. I think now it must have been in Delphi, as
the place was not familiar to me. He was sitting on a log with a group of
others with whom I was not particularly acquainted. I only saw him, did
not speak. He had on his hat and seemed to be enjoying himself, as he was

the centre of a group. I have not yet dreamed of Mr. C , and I do not

want to do so, as the awakening would be dreadful. — Lovingly,

I had inquired to know when the dream had occurred and have had
to repeat this inquiry. The answer will be found below. But the
coincidence cannot in any case be given any amount of evidential value.
The utmost that can be assigned it is the circumstance that the
ambiguity of the passage is such that we cannot say the incident is
incorrect. It would be incorrect if we assume that the communicator,
beginning with the mention of my aunt's name, is my uncle. This view
obliges us to suppose that there was an unannounced introduction of my
uncle while my father was supposed to be communicating, and this, of
course, is quite as possible as any other alternative. On the other hand,
as my father died in my uncle's home, and some of the statements alluding
to his having left my aunt are applicable to him, assuming that they are
rather automatisms, we could assume the truth of the dream incident, and
introduce my uncle immediately after it, with the remainder of the
narrative belonging to him. But I think it is impossible to clear up the
passage in every respect. The simplest way to give it unity is to sup-
pose that the statement regarding what my aunt saw in her sleep is
either a mediumistic guess or an automatism, and so to treat the general
incidents as referring to my uncle, whatever hypothesis we adopt to
explain them. The following letter, however, explains itself as indicating
when the dream occurred.

Mr dear Janes, — Yours came this morning, and as you are so very
prompt and so readily accede to my wishes with reference to the northern
land I will als<> try to be prompt.

The dream about your father was after his death. I cannot state the
exact time, but I think not long before your uncle's death, as I told him
how life-like your father looked. I have not dreamed of him since, neither
of your uncle D nor of your uncle James. — Yours lovingly,

Xenia, Ohio, April 13tfi, 1899.

Aunt Eliza.

Xenia, Ohio, April VJtK 1899.

Aunt Eliza C

356 J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D. [part

The interesting feature of this last letter is the remark that my "father
looked so life-like." This makes the experience resemble those cases of dreams
and apparitions which are noted as clear and life-like at the time and that
often turn out suggestive or coincidental. The reeords sht>w that this feature
often appears in the cases that are afterward discovered to be apparently
significant, and therefore has its interest. We must not, however, be in
haste to attach any such significance to this incident. It is simply to be
remarked as a fact that comes to the surface without any questions or sug-
gestions from me. It might well be natural to remark this characteristic in
the dream from the fact that it was the only dream that my aunt had of my
father after his death, and this circumstance might justify either the sus-
picion of an illusion in regard to its special clearness or the supposition that
it was not clearer than are, perhaps, all dreams. Hence I do not wish to be
taken as assuming any importance in the coincidence, but only as remarking
the fact, and if any one wishes to give it importance he may do so, though
any such interpretation must run the gauntlet which even much better
accredited coincidences have hard work in surviving. It raises a question,
however, which may be answered in further sittings, and it is possible even
to clear up the doubts involved in the equivocal nature of the whole
incident.

(Note 8.)

New York, April 19tt, 1899.
The following letter was in response to a request to make the date
and incidents more specific than the undated and dictated letter already
recorded has done (p. 329). It is, moreover, signed by the physician
himself, and makes the facts more certain and definite than before. It
refers to my conjecture at the time of the sittings that the consciousness of
congestion was a fact in the knowledge of my father at the time of his
death.

Xenia, Ohio, January 4th, 1899.
J. H. Hyslop, — Dear Sir, — Your letter of the 2nd to hand, and noted.
In answer to your question, ** Whether you remember saying to father or in
his presence that congestion occurred when he had his spasms and suffered
from difficulty in breathing," I would say that I did state to your father
that there was congestion (passive) of the lungs when he had his spasms
and suffered from difficulty in breathing. I also stated the same fact to
friends in his presence. — Yours sincerely, j p jylCE

It will be apparent from this statement that the fact of congestion was
in father's knowledge before his death, so that it has a special interest in
not being limited to the telepathic hypothesis for explanation.

(Note 9.)

New York, April 9th, 1899.
Concerning the reference in the third sitting to the promise to come
to me if possible after death, I find on my investigation into the letter
referred to that my impression about its contents was correct. The

Digitized by

XLL]

Appendix I.

357

letter was dictated to my stepmother and written by her. It contains
absolutely no promise to communicate with me, but only thanks for my
solicitude for his welfare in this evident close of his life. But I wrote to my
stepmother, who knew the contents of my letter to him, and asked her the
following question : *4 Did father ever say anything about trying to reach me
or make his continued existence known to me after death ? " Her answer is :
•4 No, your father never said anything about trying to reach you, or making
his continued existence known to you after death." Whatever, therefore,
may be supposed to have been in his mind or intention, no promise was
actually made, certainly not to me, and there is no recollection of anything
like it by my stepmother. She adds : " I feel positive that he never thought
of such a thing.'1

[I repeated my inquiry personally of my stepmother, taking down her
statements at the time, to know if father ever mentioned to her his inten-
tion to try to return to me if possible after death, and she replied as before
that he did not. I then asked her if she remembered my request of him
on his death-bed, and she replied that she did very well, and then volun-
teered the further statement that she had asked him what I meant by it.
He answered in the sentence : "Oh, I don't know." This, my stepmother
continued, was " the expression he always used when he did not want to
tell what was on his mind." This fact renders possible the intention which
is definitely indicated in the promise to return. March 24th, 1900.—
J. H. H.]

In regard to the physical symptoms accompanying his death, I can only
add that every one of them is correct except that of the allusion to his eyes
and the trouble they gave him. This is not known to be false, and all that
my stepmother remembers about the incideut is that he frequently com-
plained of his eyes as his health failed. But this has no pertinence to
the question here at issue in this passage. The allusion to the trouble with
his head is much more relevant, but no one knows whether it was specially
troublesome during this last half-hour. There were several periods during
the latter stage of the illness in which he complained of pain in his
head, but as the voice had wholly disappeared during the last twenty-four
hours of his life, and as I recall no physical indications of suffering in the
head, I cannot corroborate any supposition interpreting the reference here
to such a pain connected with the throes of death. He showed a patience
in all his suffering that often made it difficult to know just what pains he
had unless they appeared to be connected with the spasms of the larynx.
For instance, it was long after one of the spells in which there was not the
slightest reason to expect any revival that he remarked that there was a
pain in his heel, and that he had felt it ever since this attack. It must have
been twenty-four hours afterward, and on examination blisters had been
formed on the heel. There is much reason to suppose from the complication
of difficulties that he did suffer from pain in the head. He had had a
stroke of apoplexy some twenty years before, and we found that this critical
spell was accompanied with some symptoms of neural disturbance thaf
might give rise to trouble in the head.

(Note 10.)

358

J. H. Hyslap, Ph.D.

[paut

(Note 11.)

In regard to the incident of my sister's lock of hair, I must say that I
had some difficulty in assuring myself of the correctness of the fact beyond
my own memory. But after correspondence with my sister, stepmother,
and an aunt in the State of Washington, who was the best witness to the
fact, I ascertained its truth. But as it can hardly be evidential in any case,
owing to the frequency of such incidents in the lives of friends, I need not
dwell upon it farther than to say that it is contained in a wreath made of
the hair of all the members of the family, living and dead, at the time of
my mother' 8 death in 1869. The most striking part of this communication
from my sister was that which alludes to the photograph, and the relation
of her death to that of my brother Charles. The phrase 44 very young" is.
specially interesting, as it implies a distance in time which corresponds to
that of her death. If she had lived she would now have been thirty-nine
or forty. We have the pictures of her and Charles yet with their obituary
notices, but I have not seen them for some years. The allusion to her
demise 44 just after Charles " is quite pertinent. She died just twelve days
after him with the same disease. I remember well that on the evening
after the burial of my brother, as we sat down to the table, my sister,
though without the slightest symptom as yet of illness, and standing
between the door and the table, said to my mother : 44 Mamma, I am going
to get sick and die, too " This remark always struck my mother as very
strange, and as my sister took sick the next day the statement and fulfil-
ment of her prophecy have always remained in my memory. Hence this
allusion to the relation of her death to that of Charles at once appealed to
me with much force.

I deliberately referred to my aunt here by name, because I thought my
sister would not remember her at all, and the claim that she does may be
interpreted as aii error, though the cautious 44 1 think" may atone for
this. Her trying to 44 reach us years ago " is not verifiable.

There is also an interesting incident in the spelling of her name. I do
not remember whether we called her Anna or Annie. My aunt tells me
that her name was Anna Laura. I accepted the mime Annie at the sittings
as correct, and saw only one of the usual slips in the passage where Anna
was given and then corrected to Annie. My aunt wanted her called Annie
Laurie, but my mother would never listen to this and insisted on Anna
Laura. The confusion of the two at this point is not without its interest in
thiB connection.

(Note 12.)

The attempt to name the medicine here for which I had asked on the pre-
vious day has some interest in connection with some later inquiries made for
another purpose. I wrote to the druggist in the town out West for a list of
^**ie medicines father had bought for himself, and on the 27th of September,
, he seems to have bought some quinine. Of course I did not buy it
m, and the consideration of the fact cannot have any significance,
to note that there is a spontaneous dissent from it when Dr. Hodg-
1 if that was the medicine meant by the word 44quien" in the

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix I. •

359

automatic writing. This shows that the dissent coincides with the incor-
rectness of the supposition that I bought it for him. There is, however, in
the case an instance of the occasional automatisms that come at these
sittings and that are correct so far as they represent incidents in the life of
the alleged communicator, but incorrect in their apperceptive bearings,
though the correction of this case partly removes objection to it.

The reference to a " diary " also can have a meaning if we take my step-
mother's statement as indicative of its correctness, and this confirms my
conjecture at the time of the sitting. I asked her if father ever kept a
diary, and her reply is as follows : " Your father never kept a diary since
our marriage. His custom has always been to keep a day-book, and note
down his receipts and expenditures. Tou have his two day-books in your
possession. I have an old one here that dates back of the one you have.
He often cut slips out of paper and kept them, but you got them in his old
pocket lnx>k along with his other papers." On examination of the day-
book it has many of the features of a diary, certain statements, besides
accounts, being made in them for recollection.

The allusion to the brown handled knife is an incident of considerable
importance. I knew that I had no knowledge of such a thing, and the use
to which it was here said that it was put. I therefore wrote to my step-
mother, brother and sister, to ask about it. I was careful not to tell them
what I had been told at the sittings, as I wished to avoid any suggestions
of the answer. I did not tell them anything whatever regarding the state-
ments made to me at the sittings. It was later that I hinted at the nature
of my work and object in asking these questions, though it was surmised
that I was engaged at these experiments. But without explaining what I
had actually done I wrote, addressing the letter to my brother, and asked
the following question : " Did father own * a little brown-handled knife in
Delphi that he kept in his vest pocket and then in his coat pocket ? ' I
want you, Henrietta, and mother [stepmother] at once to answer this ques-
tion. Please to answer it if you can without questioning each other. Be
sure to follow instructions, and write me at once." The replies which I
received were as follows. My step-mother writes : "Now in reply to the
inquiries in Frank's letter I will say your father had a medium sized brown-
handled knife which he always carried in his pants pocket. I never
knew him to carry it in vest or coat pocket. I have his knife now." My
sister writes : ** Papa had a brown- handled knife at Delphi, but it was not a
small one, and I never remember seeing him carry it any place except in his
pants pocket" My brother writing in regard to the same fact says :
'* Father had a pocket-knife about four inches long with a dark cherry
handle, and another a little longer with a rough brown bone handle. B'*1
he never carried a knife in his vest or coat pocket."

(Note 13.)

(Note 14.)

860

J. H. Hydap, PLD.

I then wrote to my stepmother to have the knife sent me and it came.
It is the brown-handled one with the cherry handle, and is a smaller knife
than is usually owned by persons living as my father did. After he left the
farm there was no need for a larger knife. The brown bone-handled knife
which my brother mentions is not in existence now, or it cannot be found.
But I asked the farther question without suggesting why I wanted it
answered, and without telling the facts : 44 What did father use that little
knife with the brown bone handle for?" I asked this question from
memory, thinking that it was the bone-handled one that was in mind
and not the smaller. My stepmother answers : ' 4 As to the use of the
pocket-knife, I cannot think of any special purpose he used it for, except
cutting his finger nails, and he liked to have me trim his toe nails often, as
he could not get down to it. He liked to watch little tinkering jobs about
the house that needed to be done." My brother answers: 4 * Mother, I
think, wrote you that father used the little brown-handled knife for paring
his nails, or for general tinkeriug about the house."

It will be seen from this that the corroboration of the fact is practically
complete, save the statement about the place of carrying the knife. This
discrepancy might be easily explained, but, as we are dealing with an
evidential problem, the difficulty, if it be one, must not be slurred over.
Whatever this may be regarded, the coincidence has some value owing to the
precautions taken to prevent the answer from being suggested by my

Since writing the above note I have inquired more carefully in regard to
the cap, because it has been alluded to twice since this sitting, and when I
was not present, and what truth there is in it can be ascertained in later
notes. [Cf. Note, p. 406.]

This incident about the strychnine has an interest which I did not surmise
at the sitting. I wrote to my stepmother, brother, and sister, asking
" whether father had any medicine given him by the doctor about the time
I sent him the Hyomei, and what it was ? Was it strychnine ? " My step-
mother's answer was : "Your father took medicine from Dr. Smith, of
Delphi, in the fall and early winter of '95, which I think probably had
strychnine in it, almost sure that it had. He only gave the prescription,
and I judged from that." My sister writes: "He was taking Peruna at
the time you sent him the Hyomei. I was at home then, and I remember
of hearing about him taking strychnine at some time or other. I don't know
who prescribed it, or just at what time he was taking it." My brother writes :
"There was probably strychnine in the medicine that father took when
treating with Dr. Smith, of Delphi, as a nerve tonic is usually prescribed in
such cases. But he stopped treating with Dr. Smith at least eight or nine
months before you sent him the inhaler."

It thus appears that he was taking strychnine without my knowledge,
and this is made especially certain from the fact that it occurred after I had
seen him in the winter of 1895. for the last time before his fatal illness.

question.

(Note 15.)

(Note 16.)

xu.] Appendix I. 361

The mention of it seems to have been connected with my question about the
medicine two days before, which was partly answered in connection with the
mention of the Hyomei, as the letter 44 S" and the word "Serris," just
after the incident of the Hyomei, seem to be the anticipation of the strychnine,
which was interrupted by other incidents. This is a conjecture, however.
Assuming that it was intended to answer my inquiry the answer must be
regarded as false, because I did not get him any strychnine. But in spite of
this it turns out that he did use it, and if my question was understood to
inquire for the medicines he took as well as that I got for him it is a very
pertinent answer. At any rate it represents an incident outside my know-
ledge, and not acquired by telepathy from me, supposing, of course, that
we give it any significance at all. [Qf. Note 23, p. 365.]

(Note 17.)

After the sitting and my note on the Swedenborg incident was written,
I sent to my stepmother to make inquiry in regard to its truth, asking
the following questions: (1) 4*Did father ever talk with you about
Swedenborg ?" and (2) 44 Do you remember the long conversation we all had
about psychical research at the time I was in Indianapolis giving my lecture
on the subject, and do you remember whether father said anything about
Swedenborg in that talk ? " My stepmother's answer is : 44 He did talk
with me about Swendenborg after you had been there, merely answering my
questions about Swedenborg's belief. I remember the conversation on the
Sabbath day you were at our house in Delphi about psychical research, and
your father was the first to speak of Swedenborg. In answer to something
you said he replied : 4 that was Swedenborg's belief/ I cannot remember
much of the conversation." The incident turns out thus to be true and
pertinent, though still amenable to the telepathic hypothesis from my
subliminal memory which was not clear enough at the sitting to be anything
more than a surmise on my part when mentioned. On the other hand,
the unity and interest of the fact in the light of what would be true in
case it was my father actually communicating is much greater on the
spiritistic theory than the telepathic. It is precisely what he would think
of on such an occasion, while I have never given Swedenborg anything
more than the most casual connection with the subject, though aware of
his belief and experiences from tradition.

Latest Notes.

This Section contains additional notes representing the results of
my latest inquiries.

(Note 18.)

New York, September 20th, 1899.
In studying this sitting for a careful review of the facts, I discover
internal evidence that 1 appear to be communicating at this point with my
father. I had supposed from the name Charles that I was dealing with my
brother, but further and careful examination shows that this is not the bee*

Digitized by Google

362

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[part

interpretation of the passage. The key to this newer view is the statement :
"I hare seen Annie and mother and Charles and Henry." This could
hardly be natural for my brother Charles. But this discrepancy could be
passed by were it not for the following incidents that completely lit father,
and do not fit my brother at all. (1) The third person and relation of time
expressed in the statement : 44 Yes, he did. Some time before. And when
I came he helped me." (Cf. p. 341.) (2) Also the allusion to his passing
out 4 'suddenly at last." (3) The trouble with the head and heart. {Cf
p. 327-8, Sitting for December 26th, 1898.) (4) The expression, 44 Give me
my hat," which was one used by my father, as remarked by my brother,
whenever he wanted to go to the door or out on an errand. (5) The mis-
take of referring the ownership of the accordion to my brother George.
(Cf incident of the guitar, p. 461.) (6) The phrase later indicating the
right fact if it was father and only a possible one if it was my brother,
namely, the statement : 44 1 used to play on this."

Of course, I had no clue at the time for this interpretation, and only
later events suggest it. The name of my brother and the intimation of G. P. ,
that it was 44 Charles" calling, the mention of the other calling for me not
being accompanied with the name or relationship, concealed this possible
view from me, so that it was most natural for me at the time to suppose that
1 should adjust my questions and interpretation to the supposition that it
was my brother. But close study of the passage shows that the presence of
the lady communicator made the confusion too great to get my correct
bearings, while her dismissal brings my brother in her place later when the
communications become clear and intelligible. But in this confusion that
precedes the discovery of my indentity the incidents fit my father, and not
my brother, while the name of my brother is correct. In favour of my inter-
pretation is the fact that there is no clear and unmistakable claim that the
incidents belong to my brother, natural as it would be to suppose this con-
nection from their relation to his name in the communications. — J. H. H.

In studying the passage in the second sitting, that of December 24th,
1898, in which the name 4* Robertson " occurs, 1 chanced to think that there
might be a meaning in this reference which had entirely escaped me.
On examination, therefore, I find that it has a possible significance of some
interest. As my notes show, I had supposed that I was dealing only with
my brother Charles, and that the name 44 Robertson " was an attempt to
mention my brother Robert. The narrative of the record indicates this very
clearly. It also indicates my attempt to trick the communicator into the
belief that this brother was not living, but, as the record shows, I failed, it
is also evident that I did not at all understand the communications, and pos-
sibly the discovery of this led to the disappearance of the real communicator
in favor of the continued conversation with my brother. However this may
be, it now seems probable to me that this is the first appearance of my 44 uncle
Charles," as he is connected with the mention of the name 44 Robertson " in

(Note 19.)

New York, September 24&, 1899.

ill]

Appendix J.

sea

the second sitting (p. 317). What it appears to be is a question to know
where " Robert's son" was. My uncle usually called my father "Robert,""
and if we suppose the same state of mind and desire to speak directly to me,
as in this second siting,, we have evidence to suppose also that we are here
dealing for the moment with my uncle. The broken syllables 44 Ell ... el
. . ." get a pertinent significance which I never suspected before. [Cf. p.
314.] They are probably attempts to give the name of his wife Eliza, with
which both father and my uncle later succeeded. There is one difficulty in this
interpretation, and this is the use of the feminine gender by my brother in
introducing him. I had supposed for a moment that the reference was to
my mother, but soon saw that this was false, though without reckoning
father into the account the statement that she was the last to " come here "
was true for the family necrology. But this same remark would apply
absolutely to my uncle, who was the last of the family connections to die.
Hence, supposing that my brother is here somewhat confused in details*
as 1 notice is the case with intermediaries (Cf. pp. 332, 100-108, 146-147),
we may put the other incidents down in favor of the hypothesis that I am
oommunicating with my uncle, and what appeared confusion before becomes
perfectly clear and intelligible. — J. H. H.

(Note 20.)

New York, July 10th, 1899.
In a conversation with my aunt Nannie, living in Philadelphia, just before
going West on the mission connected with these investigations, I learned a
fact of some interest iu connection with the first sittings. I learned it with-
out asking a question regarding the matter, but during conversation about
her sister's affairs, whose husband, my " uncle Charles," had died so sud-
denly last fall, and who had appeared to communicate in those sittings. My
aunt remarked that her sister (Aunt Eliza) had suffered so much from dis-
couragement and loneliness. The business was left in a terrible condition
by my uncle's unexpected death, and my aunt was always completely de-
pendent upon him for the management of everything. She was moreover of
a very social nature and less self-sufficient than her sister Nannie, and when
my niece, who was boarding with her while going to the High School, went
home at the end of each week, my aunt suffered greatly from loneliness, and
complained of it to her sister. From worry with business and from this
loneliness they were much afraid at one time that she would not live. There
is then a coincidence between this state of mind and the remarks made by
the communicator, or communicators, in the sitting of December 24th, 1898.
It might be what a mediumistic brain should concoct out of any similar
situation, and I do not refer to it as anything evidential, but only as an
interesting coincidence, consistent with the spiritistic theory, though not
sufficiently evidential of it to merit emphasis, especially as in the
event of its recognition we must suppose it to have been post-mortem
information. It does not bear upon personal identity in any case. But
it is coincidental with the actual condition of aunt's mind in a special way.
—J. H. H.

Digitized by

364

J. U. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PART

(Note 21*)

August bth, 1899.

This reference to a tire persisted in later sittings until I took special
pains to inquire further about this incident after I had actually given it up
as false, or a mere automatism. But its persistence on the part of the
communicator, on any theory, required that the investigation be pushed
further. I then inquired of my aunt again whether she remembered any
fire near the old home which gave father a fright, and put my question
also without intimating that the message located it in his early life. Her
spontaneous answer was: "I do not remember any fire that could give
him a fright. When he was a very young man a barn in the neighbourhood
was struck with lightning and burned, but I do not think it gave him a
fright." The incident is then so near right that father reports rightly a
fire that occurred in his early life, though there seems no reason to suppose
that it gave him a fright. But the chief interest on any theory, even that of
chance, is that the two references to a fire fit exactly with his experience
with his own barn. Are we to suppose here the same confusion as we found
in the case of the walking-sticks, and with the social incidents of two
brothers ? We know what a fright the fire mentioned in the sitting for
May 30th caused, and that it was connected with the expectation that it was
his barn, about which I know he was always anxious. I do not remember
ever hearing him speak of this earlier experience, but as I know his solicitude
about the barn built in my time, it is probable that I have heard him tell the
story of the barn struck by lightning, so that I cannot say that such an
event would not be amenable to telepathy. But the real or apparent
confusion of two incidents that are known to have been a part of his
experience is a most interesting fact, all the more so that it seems to have
occurred more than once. — J. H. H.

This allusion to holding his hands over his breast has a possible meaning
if we assume that it is connected with an attempt to give the name of the
medicine that I had asked for just above. The reference to his heart and
eyes just before this is of course a continuance of the death-bed incidents.
The mention of the swelling at once called my attention to the possibility
that he was answering my earlier question with the catarrh in mind, and
hence, when the mention of holding his hands over his breast came, I thought
there was again a return to the incidents that I did not recognise at the time
as intended for the death scene. But as the name of the medicine for
which I had asked was closely associated in his mind with the disease I was
thinking of, and as the allusion to the swelling had such pertinence in
reference to his expressed wonder that it should be an accompaniment of
catarrh, it is pertinent to suppose that he was describing a method by which
he took that medicine, as it would be inevitably held in some such way in
the intervals of inhaling the vapour. 1 wrote to ray stepmother to know
if she could remember his holdiug it with the two hands over his breast, and
she recalls no instance of this in particular, but it is more than a probable

(Note 22.)

New York, October 31st, 1899.

XLI.]

Appendix I.

365

fact, as he did take the Hyomei to bed with him, and it would be most
natural to hold it so in intervals when sitting in his rocking-chair. But
there is no way to either prove the fact or to be certain that my interpreta-
tion is the true one, though I regard it as probable.— J. H. H.

I have been reading my father's letters to me during the last few years of
his life, and find an incident in one of them which has some interest in this,
connection, and which partly confirms my statements about this strychnine,,
and partly serves to contradict the opinion that I have held about my
knowledge of his taking strychnine, though this knowledge was purely
subliminal. The note in the appendix to these sittings shows that I did not
purchase this strychnine, and now I find that a letter of April 27th, 1896,.
mentions the fact that he was taking strychnine and arsenic at the same
time that he was taking the Hyomei. I had thought all along that I knew
nothing of the fact, and that the circumstance was not even in ray sub-
liminal, so completely had the fact been suppressed in my memory, as would
quite naturally be the case from its being a mere incident in a letter that I
had no special reason to remember. But here it turns up to be amenable to
the telepathic hypothesis for any one who pleases to apply it to the case*
The reference to arsenic will have an interest in another connection. But it
will be equally interesting to note that no other facts in this correspondence
are obtained, as perhaps should be the case if telepathy is to be the
explanation. But I am less anxious to remove telepathy from the explana-
tion than I am to show documentary evidence from the pen of my father
himself of the fact that he was taking strychnine at the time he was taking
the Hyomei. — J. H. H.

This response to my statement is a most pertinent one. I had intimated
my reason for not asking questions, and here, after mentioning our talk on
Swedenborg, there is the perfectly correct recollection that I had discussed
the difficulties of any such communications. That it was unlike me not to
talk freely with my father was true, and both the appreciation of my position
and the recognition of the problem as I saw it in our talk, put together
here in the natural synthetic action of independent intelligence is very
interesting. It is not like the process of telepathy as we ordinarily conceive

While working on the risnmi of these four sittings I observed that there
might be a connection between the names "Mannie," **Nani," " Mnni,"
and " Ani " in this general passage, and the later references which turned
out to be regarding my stepmother, whose name was Maggie (Cf. Note
p. 342). The internal evidence of this is the name "Mannie" and the
special pertinence of certain statements with reference to my stepmothe'

(Note 23. )
Short Beach, Conn., July 25M, 1899.

(Note 24.)

it.— J. H. H.

(Note 25.)

April 10th9 1901.

366

J. H. Hydop, ?h.D.

[part

A further and perhaps strong piece of evidence for this interpretation
of this reference is the doubt entertained about his own answer, which
was, of course, called out by my denial that 44 Nani " had them. This I
denied, of course, because I thought at the time that he had his sister
Nannie in mind. As he died at the home of my aunt Eliza, and did leave
his glasses there, and as there was ample reason for his supposing that I
was confused in regard to his meaning, the complex situation involving an
attempt to indicate both ickerr he left them and tct/A tchom he left them was
calculated both to create confusion and to cause error. From my point of
view there was no error except in the mention of his sister, but assuming
that it was my stepmother that he had in mind, as the previous use of
the name Mannie (p. 342), and later references under the name " Nannie,"
without the appendage of sister or aunt, justify me in supposing, to say
nothing of the present evidences, the whole message becomes perfectly
intelligible, slight confusion and all.

If I could suppose that my question asking who were present at the
conversation on spirit return was understood there would be clearer evidence
that • * Mannie " was meant for "Maggie." But it is quite apparent from
the content of the reply, especially in the reference to "sister," to say
nothing of Rectors direct statement, that it was not understood. The
whole passage therefore seems to be a connected one. It would appear
from the allusion to the spectacles that my father's mind was turned in the
direction of events and persons present at the time of his death. Possibly
the manner of his reference to the two aunts is corroborative of this suppo-
sition. All the facts are consistent with it if they do not prove it.

Now my stepmother was present at the conversation on spirit return
that I had in mind when I put my question, and she was also present at
father's death. It was therefore relevant that she should be mentioned in
either case. My two aunts were present only at father's death. Assuming,
then, that my question was misunderstood and that it suggested to my
father his "promise" to return after it was all over, and that this, with
my statement that he had not mentioned all the names desired, had sug-
gested the persons present during his last illness, we should have a perfectly
intelligible passage throughout. The "Nan " might be supposed to stand for
my aunt Nannie, and the "Mannie" and "Mnni" for "Maggie," while
the name of Eliza is clear. In the light of the latter identification of the
names of my aunt and my stepmother the confusion of them here is intelli-
gible (Of. pp. 69, 406). This interpretation of the passage gives a clearly
possible meaning to the statement that I was in New York when the con-
vorvntinn J uatt spirit return took place. This was false in relation to my
question, but I was in New York when I wrote the letter asking father to
come to me after it was all over. The note in the body of the detailed
record shows the special evidence that my stepmother is included in the
intended reference of my father (p. 342). The natural association of these
three names is also illustrated in the mention of them together at the close
of the sitting of June 8th (p. 496).— J. H. H.

XLI.]

Appendix II.

367

APPENDIX II.

This Appendix contains the records of five sittings — February 7th,
8th, 16th, 20th, 22nd, 1899— held by Dr. Hodgson on my behalf,
together with contemporary notes. In sending me the record of the
first of these sittings, Dr. Hodgson wrote on February 7th, 1899 :
44 You had better make such notes as you wish, so that they can be
embodied in the type- written copies as before. But do not return
them at present or tell me anything about them. Wait till I have
finished the series on your behalf." I did as he requested.

Between my sitting on December 27th and the first of the series
dealt with in this appendix, there were various references to myself
and my father at sittings held by Dr. Hodgson for other purposes. Dr.
Hodgson gives these as follows : —

[Rector writing. Sitter R. H.]

December 2Mh9 1898.

* * * We are desirous as soon as it can be made convenient for theo
to give us some articles belonging to Mr. Hyslop to bring him to thee clearly.
(Yes. His son will send me his father's diary if he can obtain it.) [Cross in
air.] It can be and we will see that he receives it for us to assist him in
clearing his thoughts. (If some other book which he has used were obtained
it perhaps would serve the purpose.) Yes, either this or the one he has in
mind, but vaguely as yet. We await this. (I understand.) * * * Now,
then, we have arranged all for the coming few days, and we would be with
thee a great deal in thine own room. We desire also to make ourselves and
our presence known to thy friend H., and besides this, we would keep in
touch with * * *

January 18th, 1899.

* * * (Yes, very good. Then our friend Hyslop is anxious to see you
many more times if you think that is desirable. He would like to come
when you arrange, perhaps after the ten times friend is finished with one
way or another, and have himself as many sittings as you can arrange for.)

This is one thing to which we would especially give attention, and to
which we have vaguely heretofore given reference. (Excuse me a moment.)
[I shut hot-air register.]

Viz., things of importance to thee as well as to us. We will after we have
arranged . . .

[to Sp.] Pardon .... yes ««• + ••* + •• [Cross in air.] for
one or two days after we have finished with thy ten times friend, give
thee full notice of our arrangements for him. U D. (Yes, very
good. ***)***

(Shall I give one or two brief messages T) Yu.

Digitized by Google

368

«/. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

(Hyslop sent his love to his father and wished to say that his father was
right about Swedenborg, — what he said.) Well. * * * (After the ten
times friend, you will arrange with me about Hyslop.) 4- Yes,
friend. *♦*(**♦ perhaps after the ten times friend I could have
several days not only for myself, but perhaps also one or two on behalf of
Hyslop before he comes again himself. Then I should have to come with
him, as he cannot read the writing well, — and after * * * ) + We will
arrange for thee as soon after thy ten, etc., friend . . [as possible] for
(I understand) . . the two days also for two or three for Hyslop and then
go on with our ladies, after which we will arrange for Hyslop personally,
then go on with * * *

January 2bth, 1899.
[Mrs. P.'s sublim. II. as she goes into trance, says " preparing for
Hyslop."]

* * * We have a great and good work to do with this dear spirit
Hyslop, who is awakening [not read at once] to the realisation .
("anchoring"?) He says awakening . . . that he can keep his pro-
mises to his son on thy side of life. A very high and intelligent spirit is he,
and no barrier between them — viz., himself and son. He is being helped by
us, and will from time to time reach through the veil, and speak familiarly
with "James." (Yes, very good.) +- (I am very pleased.) We are still de-
sirous of meeting him often after the conditions are arranged to our satisfac-
tion. * * ** (Then perhaps I had better come myself the first day after)
[the Sabbath]. We say it friend. Yes. We have much to do. And we
must do part ere meet Hyslop. * * *

January 30th, 1899.

We will, if convenient for thy friend Hyslop, arrange for him, or for thee
two days, and thereafter him [pause] four days. [Not understood at first. I
supposed they were correcting two days to four days, and asked if they
meant four days for me.] No for him, four days for him.

[Re-reading it after the sitting, I think Imperator meant to suggest two
days for myself personally, and four days for me on account of Hyslop. I
supposed at the time that only the latter was referred to.]

(Do you mean for him personally /) Yes, or for thee to meet him. [I
was about to speak.] But listen, friend. We say if convenient for him we
will meet him four days, if not we will meet thee for him.

I find it a little difficult for me to get all words to thee whilst He is
speaking. (Yes. That's all right, Rector. Now . . , )

Canst thou not let us know at this point whether he can meet us or thee
. . ^ either him or thee, as we desire to prepare his father and friends
for this, we care not which, of thee (*' or him "). [Assent.] (Yes. It will
be most convenient that I should have the days on his behalf in his
absence.)

Yes. Well, friend, then we would have thee arrange at once for as many
articles. . . . {not read], articles -he says .... we now give mention
to the number . . . three. We would like some articles if possible worn
by his father when in the body, also some one object handled a good deal by
him. (Yes. I have received several books which he used much or at least
one of which I think he handled muoh.)

Digitized by

ILL]

A]>i>endix II.

369

Viz. the Diary. (I don't think it is the Diary.)

Well, it must be something handled quite as much. (I will . . )

We are desirous of keeping him as clear as possible, friend. (Yes. I
will write for the best obtainable articles in addition to the books I have.)

Yes. A pen or pencil for instance, or knife, any object handled much.
U D. (Yes. I understand exactly.)

Well, then, friend, if thou dost U D about the days all is well. (Yes.
Which days after the Sabbath will you devote to Hyslop ?)

Four. (All ... )

All but two. We will have no break between.

(Yes. I will come first, second, third, and fourth after Sabbath. Is that
right?)

It is. (Good.)
And all will be well.

Dr. Hodgson further informs me that the omissions indicated by
asterisks in the records which follow have no relevance to my con-
cerns, and in part are private, and in part deal with other communi-
cators or sitters. — J. H. Hyslop.

Rec&rd of Sittinq, February 7th, 1899.

R. H.

[Mrs. P. talking about ordinary matters, when without a break almost.]
Do you know sometimes lately, it seems as if my head was full of
bells. . . .

I want to go into ... I want to go into the other place . . .
I don't like to stay here.

[Rector writes.]

[Cross in air.] Rector (Good morning) HAIL (Hail, Imperator.)
Friend, we desire to speak with thee especially. Whilst we are speaking thy
friend's father will be in good hands and in preparation for this meeting.
(Yes.)

We wish that we might meet Mrs. [Z.] for the benefit of her little girl,
as it will doubtless be our last meeting for some weeks, and perhaps many.
(Yea.)

The child is now in our hands, and under our guidance, and we desire to
develop the highest nature • . nature • • as we have already begun
with this . . this. After our next meeting we will be better able to
determine the day, as we see her condition meanwhile. U D. She hath
weakness in the so-called lungs which we are . . . restoring to . . .
we . . a more natural condition . . . ("we are restoring a more
natural condition ? ")

I did not get His exact words, but very nearly, friend. R. (All right.)

We do desire to give at least four meetings for Hyslop's father soon
. . at least.

We can meet thee after this day on the morrow. (Yes.)
And we will direct thee then as to our arrangements. +

<2 B T

Digitized by LjOOQIC

370

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

(Yes. There is another matter, or rather, there are two inquiries which
I have received from friends to put. Shall I put these now for you to reply
to-morrow, or shall I leave them entirely till to-morrow ? One concerns
Mrs. M. and the other is to Mr. W.)

Yes. Kindly give them now for His ans. to-morrow. R.

(Yes. Mrs. M. says : " Ask if they have any advice or counsel for me in
my aflairs at the present time.") [Cross in air.]

Received, ans. on the morrow. +

(Now Mrs. W. ?) Yes, friend.

(This is to her husband.) [R. H. reads over Mrs. W.'s letter.]

We may ans. to this that he, Mr. W., has long been seeking an [sub-
stituted for the first written] opportunity to send some message to her, as ho
fully realises all she is and has been passing through . . she. Not once
only, but many times he has begged to us I. S. D. and R. to allow him at
the first opportunity to speak and free his mind, which we have promised to
do. But we cannot do so for a few days. It will, however, be as we would
have it be. + { R }.

We will not be able to ans. further on this subject on the morrow, but
later.

(Very good. I understand.)

We are doing every thing that is possible to benefit all worthy
worthy persons on thy side, and thereby give relief to those here on our
side. We saw in Mr. D. . . thereby [not read in previous sentence]
. . for instance, great need for our return alone with him or to him.
Everything we may do will surely be well. [Cross in air.]

Now, friend, if thou hast no further questions we will bring Mr. Hyslop
to thee now. (Very good.)

[To Sp.] No he is not . . . but it is his friend . . . very well, j
No, not James, but Hodgson. Yes . . come. I

[R. H. gets package A out of bag and begins to undo it.]

Give it me friend. R. (One moment, Rector.)

[R. H. undoes package. Meanwhile hand apparently attends to Sp.]

Be patient kindly [to Sp.].

[Meanwhile R. H. undoes the various wrappings, and finally drops gently
a- metal box on the table from the last wrapping. Hand touches it and
moves it forward a little.]

Yes, friend, I am pleased to meet you. I wish to speak to James, but I
U D he is not here, but sends you in his place. (Yes.) Am I right ? (Yes,
Mr. Hyslop, quite right. I am here in behalf of your son James, whom I
know well.)

I am very pleased to know you, and I am desirous, as doubtless you
know, to reach him in every possible way. (Yes, I understand well.)

I am thinking at the moment of what I referred to concerning Emanuel
Swedenborg [Swedenborg not read at first]. Borge [?] E sounds like
Emanuel Swedenborg [badly written and not read.]

(Rector, please when you get it as clear as possible, put it in capitals.)
Yes, thanks, I will. EmanuelSW.

ILL]

Appendix II.

371

[As soon as the S was written I thought of Swedenborg, and on looking
at the previous writing saw that this was obviously intended.]

(Oh, I think I know, Swedenborg.) [Assent with emphasis]

[This reference to Swedenborg again is interesting as showing the con-
dition of mind in which my failure to remember the incident distinctly on
December 27th of the year just passed left the communicator. There is
evidently here some fear that the fact was not clear to my mind, as it was not
my note making that fact evident. But correspondence with my mother
(stepmother) shows that I did have such a conversation, and after learning
the fact I sent word to Dr. Hodgson to tell my father what is here said to
him. It is quite as interesting to remark the promptness with which it is
dropped when he is told of the discovery and admission of my mistake. —
J. H. H.] [Cf. p. 341.]

I am glad to know that he U D my meaning. (Yes.)

[At sitting of January 18th, 1899, R. H. present, occurred : " (Hyslop
sent his love to his father and wished to say that his father was right about
Swedenborg — what he said.) Well." See sitting where Professor Hyslop
was present, December 27th, 1898, p. 341.]

Yes, now I wish to tell him about another subject.

[Hand feels box] First, what message does he send me ?

(He told me some time ago to give you his love, and he has written two
questions which I have here, but perhaps . . . ) [dissent, as though to
suggest better not give them then, as I did not intend to unless desired.
Hand was apparently about to write, but did not, and took up listening
position again.] (it might be well for you to tell me first what you have on
your mind ?)

Yes, I shall be glad to do so. I am thinking of the time some years ago
when I went into the mountains for a change with him, and the trip we had
to the lake after we left the camp. Ask him if he remembers this.

[Hand lifts box up as if to show it clearly to Sp.]

And I have often thought of this.

[Father never went into the mountains with me, nor to the lake. Also
the allusion to his doing this after leaving "the camp" has no meaning
whatever. I do not know that he ever saw any mountains except the
Alleghenies which he probably saw in 1876 when he went to the Centennial
at Philadelphia. It would require a great deal of twisting and forced inter-
pretation to discover any truth in the statements for any one in the acquaint-
ance of my father, even if it could be done in any way at all. It might
suggest something to others, but it suggests only what is false to me. —
J. H. H.] [See Note 26, p. 408.]

On one trip out West we or I was caught in an accident and I was badly
shaken up in consequence.

[Hand feels box, holds it up, trembling.]

I received a nervous shock from which I never fully recovered. This and
a fire which took place are uppermost in my thoughts. Many little things
are often in my mind, but I think more frequently of the serious ones, which
are to be noted among my earthly experiences. [The first word of foregoing
sentence read by me as very.] Many little ones he said. (Oh yes, "Many
little things.")

Digitized by

372

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

I have now completely recovered from this and I can walk about as well as
ever I could. He may be glad to know this. (Yes, I will send it all to him.)
I am a little distance from you, my friend, but I hope to come nearer soon.
[Hand frequently holds box up.]

I often think of the long talks we used to have dining my last years in
earth life of the possibilities of communication with each other. [Cf.
pp. 29-34.] I hear James often speaking to me. I hear him calling as
it were for me to be near him. I am now thinking again of the accident.
We were delayed several days if I remember rightly and I think I do.
I think we lost our . . lost . . forward cars . . cars
forward . . and engine so-called [engine not read]. He says ENGINE.
Did they not go through the bridge, James . . . Yes.

Friend, thou wilt have to wait a moment for him now. (Yes.) I have
never seen a spirit more desirous of being clear and correct than he. We
will keep him near, friend.

Ask him to recall all about this, friend, when he returns {R} (About
which, Rector i) his experiences . . his + wishes thee to do so. (In
connection with this accident you mean ?) In any thing, yes this in particular.

(Yes, I will.) And the fire of which he is thinking. He is returning.

Yes, friend, I here (" I have "). I am here.

(Mr. . . .) but I cannot remain long at a time just now.

(I understand. I am sure that James will be very pleased for you to
remember all you can about your experiences in connection with this accident
or the fire.)

Yes, well then I may as well tell you all I can remember. I remember it
seemed to be in the night and we were going at quite a rapid rate when a
sudden jerk and crash aroused me, only to find we were in a . . .
dilapidated state . . . [Jerk and crash not read at first.] he says jerk
[sentence read through.] Yes, quite right.

Yes. Yes that is, the rails, bridge, cars and all . . Bridge. I have
to catch it as best I can, friend (Yes, I understand.) otherwise I could not
get it all for thee.

[This incident about the railroad accident is much like that about the trip to
the mountains, except that it may have some possibilities in it. As it stands
it has no definite meaning to me. I recall definitely no such accident as is here
described. The allusion to its having occurred when we or he made a trip
out West takes it outside my memory. Father owned some land in Illinois
and used to take trips out there to look after it. But I never heard of any
accidents into which he got on any of those trips. In 1861, when I was only
seven years old, I went with him, my mother, my sister Anna, and an aunt on
one of these trips, but I remember no serious accidents on it. If I remember
correctly, we were delayed at Kokomo, Indiana, for some reason, though I do
not recall whether there was a delay on account of an accident, or whether
my memory of the place is due wholly to its singular name. As I write,
however, I recall that we stopped for dinner, and I have always remembered
the peculiar name as a matter of childish interest, along with many incidents
of that trip, which the nature of this discussion does not at present require
me to mention. I know of two accidents that occurred in Chicago on this
trip. But they were not connected with any railways, nor with anything

XLI.]

Appendix II

373

that would suggest them. I have only the vaguest impression that on this
trip there was something that might be construed as an accident, but I am
confident that it could not be described in such strong terms as are used
here. The allusion to the fire is as indefinite as the accident, and is evidently
an attempt to reopen the incident that was not made clear to me in the
December sittings. The only thing that has any apparent connection with
the real life of my father in this narration is the allusion to his recovery of
his ability to walk, and the expression of his belief that I should be glad to
know it. There is no reason from its connection to construe it as coming
from him, but it was a fact that for fifteen years he had been unable to walk
without a cane or a crutch. But if there is any truth in the whole incident
it has no connection with my experience. — J. H. H.]

Give me his book kindly . . . or if thou canst give me his . . .
(Rector, this is all I have with me) Give him his . . Yes glasses.

(Does he remember this I) [box]

Yes, friend, very well. He had it for years.

(Perhaps he would like to tell me about it.)

Yes, but there is very little to tell about this, he says, only it is his
glasses case and was in the family for years. (Did he call it his glasses
case ? ) [spectic apparently superposed on years] He says spectacle [spectical].
(Did he call it his spectacle case ?) Yes. (I want to get it just right if
possible.)

I am quite sure of what I am saying to you, my friend. I think Nannie
will remember this also very well. You might speak to her about it, or ask
James to do so. (Yes, I will.)

I shall be better able to recall everything in time if you will be kind
enough to let me speak occasionally. I am more anxious than I can tell you
to explain every thing.

[This language about the spectacle case has some pertinence. For some
years after he began to wear glasses, he called them spectacles. Later he
began to call them glasses, but he always, in my recollection, called the case
his " spectacle case," as corrected here. Of course I had seen very little of
him after 1882, except in vacations, and then after 1885 only once until 1892,
again in 1894, and last when he died in 1896. But I remember what he
called both his glasses and the case. No special evidential value can be put
upon the fact here, because there is hardly any choice for a speaker on this
matter, as the usage here adopted would probably be universal. But it
deserves remark as a fact that the usage here conforms to the fact of my
father's usage when living, and that there was a change of usage for the
term glasses. This is the reason that 1 asked in the sitting for the 27th of
December last what glasses he meant when he alluded to them. I wished
then to see if he would resort to his regular usage in regard to them.
** Nannie " is probably Rector's mistake for Maggie, the name of my step-
mother.—J. H. H.] [Cf. pp. 342, 366.]

(Yes, have you . . ) and . . [Hand had started to write, then
listens.] (I was going to ask if you had finished about the fire.)

Yea, for now. I will think it over and tell you more about it, as I am to
meet you to-morrow, as we used to say. (Yes.)

I shall be glad to do so.

374

J. H. Hyslvp, Ph.D.

[part

I begin to see what James is wishing me to do.

(I will explain further. You understand, Mr. Hyslop, that we do not see
you and we do not hear you.) Is it so? (There is a lady in our material
world who has this light, and she goes into a trance. You must remember
talking of trance.)

I do, I do. Yes, quite. This is quite clear . . . then (Well) Goon.
(Well, this lady goes into trance, and her head is resting on cushions just
as if she was asleep in the ordinary way.)

(Then, her hand and arm rest on a table, convenient for writing upon.)

(Now our kind friend and helper Rector [hand bows] can use this arm
and hand of the lady in trance and make it write just as you used to write
yourself.)

Indeed. Then, well then what I say is written out for you, is it ?

(Yes, exactly. You talk in your way to Rector. Rector talks to me
through this machine, that is, the arm and hand are like a machine.)

Oh yes, I begin to see, but I can see Rector and hear him speak to me.
I hear his question perfectly, and I see him clearly.

Friend, he has his head near . . head . . head.

(Well, now, you see that all that we can see, because we are still in the
material world, all we can tell is, that the hand of this lady in trance writes
on the paper and says that it is so and so using it from the spirit world.)

Oh yes, I see.

(Well now, if James had said to you when you were in the body, " Come
with me and see a lady in trance. Her hand is controlled by a spirit,' ' you
probably would not have believed it.)

No, probably not.

(And if James had passed out of the body and you were left behind, and
if I came to you and said 44 Your son James wishes to see you and talk to
you," and if I prevailed upon you to come here, we will suppose, and you
were in the body with me and James was where you are, talking to Rector —
what do you think James would try to remind you of ?)

Why everything that we used to do together of course, friend,

(Yes, now . . . )

or in other words aU. I say all, about his earthly experiences, because
he would like me to make sure it was he.

(Exactly. Now that is just what he wants. He wants . . )

Well, it is just what he will get, then, because I know perfectly well who
and what I am and I know what would please my son James, and I will do
all in my power to prove that I am his father. U D.

(Yes, now, I shall be delighted to meet you to-morrow. The time is
nearly gone now for us. But if you think over what I have told you about
the way it appears to us — that is, a lady in trance writing with her hand,
while the rest of her body is, as it were, asleep, that is, trance — you will see
how important it is for you to tell as many private personal incidents and
curious things about your personal friends and so on that nobody else
could.)

Friend, we will explain all this in detail to him { a part we may say is
well U D by him now, [ } ] and we feel satisfied that although he may not

Yes.

ILL]

Ajypendix II.

375

»j as much in some ways as other spirits might, yet what he does say
. . what he does say . . will be correct. +
(Very good. That's the important thing after all.)

Yes, we know full well, friend, and we will take care that all will be well.
Good day, friend. I will think it over.

(Good day ; and I shall look forward to hearing from you again to-
morrow. It will not be possible for me to get a fresh message for you from
James, because you remember this is Boston, and James lives across the
country.)

Yes. New York. (Yes, New York.) I remember well.

[The allusion to my being in New York, though correct, could hardly be
of much evidential value, even if, in my question about the medicine (p.
330), I had not used the name of New York. — J. H. H.]

(But I will tell him all in due time.) And I you, friend. (Well, thank
you very much.)

[Box held up trembling.]

Friend, the light is going out with us, (Yes.) and ere we depart we bid
thee farewell. (Is there anything I can do further to help ?) No, all is well.
May God in His tenderest Mercy lead thee into light and joy, and may His
blessings rest on thee + { R.}

[Mrs. P.'ssublim.]

That's the . . that's your world and this is ours.

I saw you take it a . . I saw . . I want you to . . . turn
the dark * * * turn the dark board away, I don't like to look at it.

You see Rector turns round a dark board and says that's your world, —
and he turns round the other side and that's light and he says that's his world.
The whole world is black, but the light bodies can come into it. * * *

Record of Sitting, February 8th, 1899.

R. H.

In going off, Mrs. P.'s left hand points out forward, then makes a cross
in air ; then her lips move quietly as though she was repeating words, but
no sound was audible.

[Imperator writes.]
[I see from the more gentle movements of the hand, and the quieter
making of cross in air, that Imperator has taken the hand, and give
Btylographic pen.]

HAIL (Hail, Imperator.) [I spoke in a low voice, and perhaps my
greeting was not heard, as the Hail was repeated.] HAIL. (Hail.) +
In this light we greet thee and bestow God's blessings upon thee.
Friend, thou art with us and we are with thee.
God's tenderest care will protect thee, no [not read] . .
Evil enter not where thou art

He hath said I am the father . . Father, the . . life . . the
and let my light shine forth in thee.

Holy Father, we are with thee in all thy ways [?], and to thee we
come in all things. We ask thee to give us thy tender love and care.

Digitized by Google

376

J. H. Hydop, PhJ).

[part

Bestow thy blessings upon this thy fellow creature, and * * * instruct
him that [i] . . this thy fellow ere . . help him to be all that thou
dost ask . . him . . Teach him to walk in the path of righteousness and
truth. He needs thy loving care. Teach him in all things to do thy holy
will. Teach him to do thy holy will, teach him . . and we leave all
else in thy hands. Without thy care we are indeed bereft. Watch [ ?]
over and guide his footsteps and lead him [/] lead him into . and
lead him into light . . lead . . lead him into truth and light.
Father, we beseech thee to so open the blinded [ ? ] eyes of mortals
that they may know more of thee and thy tender love . . love .
and care.

We have now restored the light . . we have . . and we thank
thee, oh Father, for thy help.

Friend, if thou art perplexed or troubled, come to us, and [we] will right
all. (Amen.)

In His name we act for thee . . act.

May all good and deserving mortals find . . worthy . • worthy
deserving . . seek and find God.

[Repetitions occasionally necessary owing to several instances when the
ink did not flow and frequently to my inability to decipher. Here was
originally written 44 May all good and deserving mortals find." I couldn't
read after "good and," when 44 worthy worthy deserving" were written,
followed by 44 seek and find God."]

We depart, leaving thee now in His . . His hands and under the
guidance . . under the guidance . . of [read at sitting as 4 * under His
guidance "] . . with . . His messengers. I. S. D. and he who * *
[ ?] nil thin?* well, Rector [ ?] [Couldn't read.]

t ] well . . well what . . what . . what God desires
I to -da, Rector.

[A ft ui- ui} reading this last sentence.]

Vls friend. We [ i he] will be near thee throughout. I go now and
taive thee with Rector. Peace be with thee. (Amen.) + I. S. D.

[Rector writes.]
Rector : Gkx id morrow friend. (Good morning. )

Enter Doctor for a moment only. [Not read at sitting. This writing
uWivi] off very rapidly.]

Condition* infinitely better.
fl)i«tur>wn in hand.]

[Doctor writes.]
Dueti-i i M»ud morning. I am Doctor.
(Oh, good morning, Doctor. Very glad to meet you again.)
I *fn still with you. (I am very pleased.)

No friend < k s more for all [?] your interests [than I do. I will help
von throughout. (Thank you very much.)

Although ailent in speech I am with you in thought . . silent .

bring your friend and well wisher. Adieu,
me whenever you wish me.

Digitized by

xli.]

Appendix II.

377

(Yes. I shall always be very pleased for your help. I have often thought
that you have been here helping or with me sometimes when I have not been
here.)

True indeed, quite true, I am often with you, and I am present although
I do not speak directly to you.

I am your friend and helper in all things, and when you are absent from
the light I am often guiding and helping you. Will continue to do so.
Farewell.

(Farewell, Doctor, for the present. Thank you.)

Returned. Rector. (Yes.) With the direct answers to any [my?]
questions and to help Mr. Hyslop to come closer. (Good.)

I . . . (Shall I present articles ?) [Assent. Cross in air.]
Yes kindly. I am very near thee, friend.

(I am very glad.) (There is this.) [presenting box used yesterday.]
[I also opened package C. and left it opened on floor behind me, seeing that
it contained a book, knife, and spectacle case.]

+ wishes me to say that it will be impossible for h . . Him to answer
for Mr. W. this day, as it will necessitate our using too much light for him,
and we must give it for this kind gentleman, viz., Mr. Hyslop. (Yes, I
understand.) He will ans. for W. later. (I understand.)

Good morning, James. I am glad to be here again. I am your father
still who is trying to help you find me. I recall quite vividly some few
recollections which I think will interest you somewhat. I remember some
years ago of sending . . sending George some of the photos taken of
the Library [not read] . . wait a . . Library, and he said he would
return copies after he had finished them . . (" finished " I) finished
them . . finished, he repeats.

[This allusion to his 4 4 library " had no meaning to me, as I never knew
him to call any room a library. He had no such room in his house. But I
wrote to my stepmother in regard to this and several other matters in this
sitting, and the reply is that father 44 never called " the sitting room, which
also contained what books he owned, his library. Besides, he never had any
photos of it taken and sent no such articles to my brother George. This
incident is therefore totally false. It has an interest, nevertheless, under
the telepathic hypothesis, if that must be invoked to explain the true
incidents in the various sittings. The term library describes what I have
in my house, though I never had any photo of it taken, and we might sup-
pose that the telepathic acquisition of what pertained to my father might be
mixed up with ideas taken from my mind about my library. I do not attach
any weight to this supposition in the case of this incident alone, but only in
view of the resort to telepathy at all for other facts, when the falsity of this
incident considered in relation to my father can be partly accounted for by
supposing some telepathic 44 fishing " amid the ideas of my own mind. The
applicability of 44 library " to my own mind is, of course, the only reason for
such a suggestion, though in detail it is as false regarding myself as it is
regarding any experience of father's. The only escape of the spiritistic
theory on this and some similar and later incidents is that the discarnate

[Rector writes.]

378

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

spirit is out of his right mind, or that there is an intermediary present who
interprets a reference to the room where he kept his books, and that he
would call a "sitting room," as "library." — J. H. H.] [I have since
ascertained that my father sent a photo of himself and my mother to my
brother George, but the language here does not fit the fact as known.
(May 21st, 1900.) J. H. H.]

I also rem . . recall the disturbance and trouble I had with one of
my eyes, the left one. Do you not remember this, and the little so-called
. . What . . . P . . A . . yes, I hear. Pad. Pad. I had a
peculiar mark, which you will recall, at the back of the ears [ear ?]

Tell me, friend, that I may show it to him.

[The allusion both to the difficulty with the left eye and to the mark
behind the ear is, as far as I and my stepmother know, entirely false. We
never knew of any trouble with either of them. — J.H.H.] [See Note 27, p. 409.]

(Some more articles, Rector ?)

[Hand lifts box and still holding box, touches with fingers a spot behind
my left ear just below mastoid process.] (Here ?) Yes.

Yes. Give me one. [In reply to question above about more articles.]

(I think there are some more inside this [box]. Can you ask Mr. Hyslop
if he can tell what they are inside before I open.) [Pause.]

He is saying something. Wait until I hear it clearly.

[Pause.] This I think is the one I used to put my Pen ho [?]-••
no not pen, Paper cutter . . P . . sounds like ... in . .

[As a matter of fact I had kept father's pen in this spectacle case ever
since his death, and it was there in the case when thus shown to Mrs. P. But,
as indicated by Dr. Hodgson, it had not yet been opened. The allusion to a
paper cutter I thought nonsense, as I had never known father to have a
paper cutter. He never needed one for the purpose of cutting the leaves of
new books, as I suppose he had not bought any books that would need
cutting of the leaves for forty years, and the newspapers he took needed no
such instrument. Hence I treated the reference here as nonsense. But I
took no risks in the matter, and asked my stepmother whether father ever
owned such an article, and if so, whether he ever put it in his spectacle case,
expecting to find my suspicion confirmed. Her reply is that he did have a
paper cutter, a wooden one made by my brother, for opening letters, but
that he carried it in his vest pocket. I believe also that he never kept his
pen in this case. The later statements seem much clearer on this matter. —
J. H. H.] [Cf. Note 34, p. 414]

Perhaps you will recall my asking for my knife . . recall. [Of. p. 336.]
(Yes.)

I think, friend, he is quite ready. [Cross in air.] Yes.

[The allusion to his knife here shows a memory of what had been asked
for at an earlier sitting as already discussed, and indicates the same
personality as then on any theory of the case, as also do many other
incidents. — J. H. H.]

(Does he wish to say anything about the present contents of this box)
[Pause.] (before I open it ?) Only concerning his spectacles, that is all. I
have to say ... let me go a minute and return. I am very blind and
I begin to feel strange.

Digitized by

Appendix II.

379

d contain his spectacles as well as his pen. — J. H. H.]
ay and come back.)
very well. He seems a most intelligent fellow, but finds it
to remain long at a time. In time he will, however, come
uite clear, and do a great [work] for thee, friend.

Yes, I see, you are not really James, but his friend. Glad
ou. (I am very glad.)

mber I used to have this little case on my desk a great deal,
m sure I used to place my spectacles in it. Yes, and some*
-cutter.

ure he is right.

ent about the spectacles is correct, but that about the paper-
as far as can be ascertained. — J. H. H.]
. . ) He seems to know. (Anything else about what he
it.) No, no he says nothing.
Hyslop. Can you see what is now in it ?)
my glasses. Yes.

er about trying to see what is actually now in the box, but if
tell what exactly is in it, of course I shall be glad.)
you not let me look and think more about it and make quite

. . . there is no hurry, and I would much rather you
the time you want and be quite calm and peaceful, and just
how you can best give good tests to James.)
well, then. Until I become accustomed to this way of speak -
d the light that looks so bright to me and through which I am
at you, I will not try to say too many things, but you can per-
how anxious I am to reach my children, especially James, as he
re to me than the rest, in a way.

everything I ever did. All in one minute it comes to me, then
e me when I try to express something of it to you. (Yes.)
patience and time, friend, he will become clear and remember
men.)

not, worry him not, and all will be well. Let him look at thy
(return to thee and tell thee of it, friend + .

l» he there, now, Rector ?) Yes. (Shall I ask him to look at the

away and return T) + has done so.

after he hath returned, kindly let him tell thee . .
'fore anything else.) [Assent.]
p ask him another question to think over, etc.
' opened Professor Hyslop's letter containing two questions to be

' we will answer one question meanwhile for Mrs. M.
ood. Yes. I'm listening.)

ell and we are doing all we can for thee. Make no haste in any-
le present, and think little concerning what thou are planning to
a little while and it will be wiser for thee. + . (Yes.)
estion.

ion from Hyslop T) [Dissent.]

Digitized by

3»0

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

(Mrs. M. 0 [Assent.]

From her take to us now for a later reply.

(She said : ask " If they have any advice or counsel for me in my affa
at the present time."

"I want to know whether they know what has happened to me lately,
much as I want their help. " She adds that.)

Yes, we do indeed well, and we have given our answer.

(That is all then, is it I) Yes, until later (Very good.) on, when we m<
thee again. Yes, all.

Yes, it contains my cutter. [Of. pp. 378, 379.]

How soon are we to meet thee again ? (That is for you to arrange.) 1
have now arranged for Mr. D. . . .

Yes, my friend, yes. [Rector to Mr. Hyslop f\

And Mrs. C, and then we can meet thee two times for Mr. Hyslop, a
we prefer that thou, [ { ] as he does also }, shouldst not open this until !
gives thee [the] permission. When he does thou wilt be satisfied. (Y<t
very good.)

Do not do so until we meet thee again for him. (I will not.)

Meanwhile place it in thy room for a few hours whilst thou art there n^
what Miss Q. calls her chair (I will.) and he will return there with us, ai
then answer here for thee. (Very good. Yes, I understand.)

[January 13th, 1900. For "Q.," see Proceedings, Vol. VIH., pp.
60-67. Since the time of that Report I have had many written communic
tions from '* Q.," who has made various references to the armchair in whi<
I usually sit when reading in my room. — R. H.]

Meanwhile, friend, give me the other object, as it will also help him.

[Package C. contents placed on table, book, knife and spectacle case.]

[Hand touches them with much trembling excitement.]

Place it here [indicating that book should be placed where the hand ha
placed the box, — on that edge of the writing-table next the cushioned table

This I desired most of all.

(Which, Rector i knife ?) [Hand is taking up knife]
Yes. [Hand feels over book again.]

and book, but knife especially. Oh I rem . . [sheet turned]
Oh, I remember so well all I longed to do before . . before .
leaving the body. I often used to sit in my room and pore over the page
of my books and write out little extracts from them in my diary.

[This statement that he used to pore over his books and make extract}
from them is quite true. I thought it so from some things that I had seel
among his papers after his death, and from what I knew of his genera'
habits when I was younger, but thinking that I might be mistaken I mquird
of my stepmother regarding it, and find that it was his habit to write
out extracts, though he did not write them in his diary. As indicated in
earlier notes, father did not keep what could be called ordinarily a diary,
but only an account book which served in many respects as a diary, as it
contained facts and records that most people would call or embody in a
diary. He also kept his daily accounts in it. But the extracts from his
reading were written down on other pieces of paper for special use.—

J. H. H.]

Appendix II.

381

What is that, Ferdinand ? [not read and badly written, but apparently
tended for Ferdinand.] sounds like Ferdinand. U D. (No.) Ferdinand.
sr (No. Can't read.) E .... FERDINAND.

(I will look.) [I look and read the title on back of book, Anderson's
zc lures on Theology. The back of book was doubled over and was not
sible to me before.]

(No, not Ferdinand.) Sounds very hke it. He says it again. (It is
wuieraoris Lectures on Theology.) Yes. Yes. But did ...AND...

hear it so well . AND . . (Yes.) E . . . Yes, all right ;
s- has it. Yes, but this is all I shall need now for some time, he
ys. (Yes.)

He is now in the same state that thy friend George was when he first
^turned to thee. [I understood this to mean that the communicator was in
1*3 same state as regards appreciation of the situation, ability to communi-
,te, etc., as G. P. was when the latter first communicated. See Proceedings,
ol. Xm., p. 296 (January 13th, 1900).— R. H.]

(Shall I now give him a fresh question to take and return ?) Yes.

(His son James asks : 44 Do you remember any other medicine besides the
[jomei and strychnine you mentioned before, and that you took at the time
>u took them, or near that time ? ")

[Repeated. Hand apparently communicates to Mr. Hyslop ?]

No, again kindly.

(I will add something first. You said, Mr. Hyslop, you referred, when
allies was here with me, to medicines about which he asked. You said, you
^ f erred to Hyomei, and also to strychnine. Remember ?)

Yes, I do now quite. You refer to what I said after I came here.

(Yes, exactly. When James was here with me, and asking you test
uestions, and you were a little confused but trying to recall things for him.)

Yes, I know now, go on.

(Well, James writes : "Do you remember any other medicine besides the
3yomei and strychnine you mentioned before ") [Hand here turns sharply
fcway from me to Sp. — to repeat ? after a short interval the hand again turns

0 listen to me.] ("and that you took at the time you took them, or near
;hat time ? ")

Yes, I think I do, and I will try and recall it presently.
(If you will get his question quite clear, and then kindly go away and
think of the answer and then return and give it to me, it will be best,

1 think.)

Yes. I + will remove Rector with him also for a moment as he [Rector]
has the question very clearly and can better communicate it to him. (Yes.)
Adieu R.

[Prudens writes.]
Prudens : Are you well, friend ?

(Yes, thank you. I am very pleased to meet you here.)

What are you talking about kindly ?

(We are getting an answer from Mr. Hyslop whom . .)

Yes, I know. But what did you say to me ? ["] Glad to see me."

(Yes. I said, glad to meet you here.)

Ah, yes, I see, well it is mutual.

Digitized by Google

382

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

I came to help [keep ?] keep the light in repair. Are you getting on well in
your life ?

(Yes. I feel that I am much better off in every way since I came into
relations with your group of workers under Imperator.)

Well, He is constantly caring for you and no messenger could be more
helpful than He is, I know. For the present I am Prudens to all who may
enquire on your side. (Yes.)

I go now. Good-bye. P .

(Good-bye, Prudense [Prudens] for the present.)

Friend, it is impossible for him to answer thes . . these questions until
he returns to thee again. (Very good.) He must and will be helped to
think them out. (Yes.)

And when he does thou wilt be pleased . . pleased. His son, if thou
wilt remember, gave him this opportunity, i.e., to leave the light and return
the next day with answers, and this is what we would have him do. (Yes,
I understand exactly.) It is better so, and will not confuse him. (Very
good.)

Friend, we do not think we can hold the light longer.
(No, the time is nearly up, too.)
He hath drawn on it so completely.

Had it not been for + we could not possibly have remained as . .
so [superposed on as] long . . so . . as we have already.

(Very good. I come the third and fourth after next Sabbath.)

Yes, unless + hath got him quite clear and sees need for him to speak
earlier, (Yes.) in which case thou shalt know. Speak if thou dost [wish]

(Otherwise, to-morrow Mrs. Z. Monday . . first day after Sabbath,
Mr. D.)

Yes, unless we change this for the benefit of Mr. Hyslop, as we may feel
it necessary.

(In that case you will tell Mrs. Z. to-morrow ?) Yes, we will. (Very
good. I think all is clear now.)

Friend, we bid thee farewell until we choose to meet thee as thou wilt
know. God be thy guide meanwhile. -I- { R} [Cross in air.]

[Hand holds up knife, puts it down. Cross in air.]

Cut your fingers with it sure. Take it away from him. Take it away
from him. Oh, is that you, Imperator. I want to go too. I want to go.
[in crying voice.]

[Further inarticulate murmurs.]

[In regard to both this and the first of the two sittings in my behalf by
I Jr. [IiMltrgrm, I wrote to my stepmother to ascertain whether certain in-
puts were true that I could not know, and the following is her reply,
ong t hem I asked whether there had been any delay or accident on the
til way when they moved to the West, thinking that I had heard in some of
iy father's letters of some delay, and supposing that there might have been
j mo bosu in a fact of this sort for the extraordinary statements on his part

[Rector writes.]

[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]

XLI.]

Appendix II.

383

about the railway accident, though aware that chronologically such an in-
cident would be out of its place in reference to me. Her letter in reply
shows that there was no delay of any kind according to her recollection, though
my brother Frank says that there was some delay in regard to the goods, but
no accident. But even supposing either some delay or an accident or both, I
think we could attach no significance to such a coincidence, except in favour
of chance or guessing ; for the statement in regard to the alleged facts
evidently relates to a trip when I had accompanied him, or when he had
gone alone. The only possibility of relevance therefore lies in the sup-
position that the time must coincide with the journeys which my father took
to Illinois. Of course my age of seven years makes my memory too poor to
trust for any purposes, confirmatory or otherwise. I have already mentioned
the fact that I remember distinctly one delay for dinner at Kokomo, Indiana,
and since then I recall the probability that we stopped there twice, once
going and once on returning, but I recall nothing definite enough to say that
there was a delay at that place. But I have a strong impression from
memory that there was a delay at some point on that journey that was due to
an accident, but not to our train. Where, I cannot recall. At any rate, it
was not serious enough to be talked about either to relatives or at home
among his children, and no one is now living that could possibly throw light
upon the matter but myself and my mother's sister, who was with us at the
time, as I was the only child with him and mother at the time, except sister
Annie, and she died a few years afterward. My aunt remembers no railway
accident in which father was at any time.

But the answers to my questions put to my stepmother regarding the
various incidents in the two sittings explain themselves. I did not tell her
the contents of the statements made in Boston, but inquired to know whether
certain facts were true or not. — J. H. H.

Bloomington, Ind., February \\th, 1899.
My dear James, — Your note of February 9th at hand, and I reply at
once.

1st. Your father never called our sitting room at Delphi the "hbrary."

2nd. No, he never had a photo taken of any description to send to George.

3rd. He had a little wooden paper-cutter that Frank made him to open
letters with once while he was at home with us in Delphi, but he positively
never carried it in his spectacle case, but in his vest pocket.

4th. No, there was no delay or accident on our way from Xenia to
Delphi.

5th. No delay or accident happened to the cars that brought our goods.
They got to Delphi before we did.

6th. No, he had no mark behind his ear. [Cf. p. 410.]
7th. When he wanted to write an article for publication he would read
up and note down extracts that he wanted to use. Most generally he put
the ideas in his own language, but in his general reading he did not, —
Affectionately , Mother.

I remember in my correspondence at the time that my father complained
of some delay and difficulty in getting his goods through as he had desired,
and this is confirmed by my brother's statement. — J. H. H.]

Digitized by

384

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Record of Sitting, February 16th, 1899.

R. H.

[Rector speaks.]

* * ♦ * ♦

[Rector writes.]

♦ ♦ * * ♦

Now we are ready for other work and will do all we can under the
circumstance^].

We have meanwhile had some conference with Mr. Hyslop, and whereas
we . . . whilst we find him far from what we desire we know he will be
all we could ask or desire him to be for thy work. In due time thou wilt
have much comfort through him and his messages. After he becomes clear
he will be of much help to thee. Here he comes. We were speaking with
him concerning the medicine . . medicine, and he thinks James means
the morphin . . the morphine which he took some time before.

(Shall I read the question again T) [Cross in air.]

Ah, but we know he says Morphine. Yes.

("Do you remember any other medicine besides the Hyomei and
strychnine you mentioned before, and that you took at the time you took
them, or near that time ? ")

Yes, all right. It must be this, as I took some. (Yes.)

[I know nothing of father's having taken morphine and doubted it when
I read this passage. The nature of the difficulty, however, under which he
suffered, which would prompt some physicians, at least according to older
practice, to resort to it, led me to inquire both of the physician who attended
his last illness and of my stepmother whether father had ever used any
morphine, and both answer in the negative. The physician did not prescribe
any for him after his return to his old home to die, and I knew there was no
reason in the disease itself for hope of relief in this remedy, though morphine
might have been serviceable to aid his sleep. He had also suffered from
much sleeplessness for a year or more before his death and this was the
reason that I suspected the possibility of his having taken morphine under
the old-fashioned treatment he received in the State in which he was then
living. My stepmother says in answer to my inquiry : " No, he never took
any morphine at any time that I ever knew of. He always said that he
never could take it."— J. H. H.] [See Note 28, p. 410.]

(Now, shall I go on with Mr. Hyslop now ?) [Assent.]

Yes, do kindly, as + is with him, doing His best to keep him near. The
object first. We desire his glasses first as he has them on his mind and we
desire to clear his mind in regard to them. After he has fully recognised
them we will have no further question from him concerning them . .
concerning them, and he will then go on with the other. . .

[In the meantime I had placed the metal box of previous sittings on table.
At this stage I directed the hand to the box.]

Yes, one pr. of them is [written above line after )vtre with caret below.]
here and the other pr. there [not read at first].

one pair is here and the (" other pair is") near , . near, [hand
points in direction of my bag on floor.]

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix II.

385

[I get spectacle case of leather out of parcel in bag, original package C
used at previous sitting for Hyslop, and put it close to other box on table.]

They are both here. Yes. One spectacles in fact both in fact both
spectacles.

Yes. All right. I am very glad to see you. How is James, and have
you really seen him or do you only hear

(I only hear at present. You would . . .)
through what we used to call letters ?

[Singular statement : it is like the ordinary medium's. — J. H. H.]
(Yes, he . . I got a letter from him this morning, but he wrote it

some days ago and mailed it in New York without a stamp, and so it was

returned. You would joke him on this.)
I would indeed.

(It was about questions for you, which I will give you when you have
cleared your mind about the spectacles and the articles inside this case. )

They are my spectacles, friend. Yes. I have other things on my mind
of course naturally, but I am near enough to enable me to see that the out-
line [ { ] as it appears to me now } [bracket apparently inserted after of was
written.] of the outline of my spectacles are present.

Here and here. [Holding up each case in turn.]

I am very pleased to know you as I often heard of you when I was in the
body. (Oh, did James speak of me ?) Yes. Tell him this, he will remember
it very well.

[I did speak of Dr. Hodgson to my father in the conversation mentioned
in my own sittings, but as often as 1 may have mentioned him in this con-
versation I cannot be said to have done it in the way that it is most natural
to interpret this statement here. I gave father one of the first two reports
on Mrs. Piper to read, but I cannot recall whether it was Part XVII., Pro-
ceedings S.P.R., or Dr. Hodgson's first Report, Part XXI. My impression
is that it was the former. But there is nothing in the allusion to suspect
that this is in mind, except a desire that an interested person might have to
construe the frequency indicated in an unnatural manner. — J. H. H.]

Do not gather the idea that I was subject to . . gather . . morphia
because I was not, only as a medicine ... a subject U D.

[True, pertinent and natural, but without significance. A medium's
trick. — J. H. H.] [Further reflection shows that this last remark is not
justified. November 3rd, 1899.— J. H. H.]

(I understand. Yes.)

Can you not give me some idea of the time since I left your side of life ?
Is it what used to seem years to us, or is it only months ? I remember the spring
very well. (I think, Mr. Hyslop, it is some two years or so, but I am not
sure.) Oh, no, I think not. Two years. Well, well, if it has taken me two
• years to find this door open I am ashamed of it. I think I lived in the body
in the spring I remember it so well [spring not read] . . what we used to
call spring [read] . . so wel . . yes. Yes, spring.

[No meaning in this, except that it is false if the intention be to allude to
the time of his death. He died the last of August, 1896.— J. H. H.]

[Further inquiry shows that in the spring of 1895 father suddenly re-
covered his voice, and was very happy and hopeful about it, and, as a

386

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

consequence, renewed an active interest in certain religious matters involv-
ing the use of his voice. He lost it again in a few months, and then in the
spring of 1896, a few months before his death, he became very much
depressed by the evidence that his disease was getting the better of him*
This might possibly explain the allusion to spring. (May 22nd, 1900.)—
J. H. H.]

Now, can you recall anything about my beliefs in God ? You know well
that I always intended [tended ?] to [apparently interpreted by R. H. at the
time as "You know well what I always tended to"] do, that was to shut
my eyes to what I could not really see.

(He's getting confused, Rector, isn't he ?)

No. He means he would not really believe he could return, but hoped
he would be able to do so. U D. (Yes.) [See p. 474.]

Yes, he seems quite clear just now. Perhaps it would do to ask him
another question. Yes. He says it would.

(Well James says :) Speak softly and slowly, kindly friend.

(James says : "Do you remember Samuel Cooper and can you say any-
thing about him ? ") [Repeated, and Cooper also spelt.]

+ will take this to him. [Pause.]

Yes, I do very well, and this reminds me of the accident. [No relevancy
in this remark.— J. H. H.] [See Note 30, p. 412.]

He refers to the old friend of mine in the Wed. [Not true unless
" West " could mean west of Boston. But this would make it a mediumistic
trick. — J. H. H.] [Later discoveries of what I did not know show that
father's statement is true of Dr. Joseph Cooper, and that any remark about
a trick is not justified. (January 1st, 1900.)— J. H. H.]

I remember the visits we used to make to each other well, and the long
talks we had concerning Philisiavel [ ? ] Phisochvacl [ ? ] P h i 1 o soph . .
[philosophical] topics.

Let me think this over, James, and I wi [sheet turned] . . will answer
it completely, and tell you all about him [not read] . . tell . . and
tell you all I know about him.

Yes. This is [all] [In reply to my inability to read the word compUUly
at the time.]

And I will answer for you. (" This is I " ?)

("and I will answer for you " ?)

Yes, that is all.

[This reference to the visits and talks on philosophical topics has no truth
in it whatsoever. The man for whom I had asked was an old neighbour of
father's in the State in which father lived before moving to Indiana, and I
knew if he in any way recognised this man with the slightest allusion to some
simple truth about their lives on adjacent farms it would be conclusive
evidence of identity. This Samuel Cooper was so far from being philosophic
that he would not understand even the word. The phrase "philosophical
topics " then sounds like an echo of some telepathic acquisitions obtained
from my mind when in Boston. It has absolutely no relevance to the
person named in my question. — J. H. H.] [For effect of further inquiry
upon my estimate of this general incident, see Note 29, p. 410. (May 23rd,
1900.)— J. H. H.]

Digitized by Google

XL!.]

Ajypeiidix II.

387

Do you recall a little black skull cap or w [the I used superposed on or w]
I used to wear and what has become of it ? I have looked and looked for it,
but do not see it anywhere about. [See Note, p. 406, and pp. 43, 44.]
Answer this for me, James, when you come again.

Friend, thou mayst not know of him much, but he does well, and is quite
clear about it. He also inquires of a special pen or quill, as he calls it, with
which he used to write. (Yes. I will tell James.)

[This allusion to the skull cap again is interesting, especially in connection
with that to the 4 4 pen or quill" : for it induced me to inquire of an aunt who
knew father's early habits when he became bald, as he did very early, and
before I was born. He was bald as far back as I can remember, and I
thought it possible that he might have worn some cap for his head, though
such a thing as wearing a skull cap was foreign to his own habits and an un-
known among his acquaintances. I find that he never wore such a thing in
his early life. But he did use quill pens until he bought the gold pen which
I had sent on to Dr. Hodgson for use at the sittings. The cap is mentioned
in a later sitting, and I shall add there what I did in regard to a similar
allusion in my last sitting in Boston on December 27th. — J. H. H.] [See
Note, p. 406.]

and . . wait . . . what is he talking about . . . [Excite-
ment] book kindly . . Book . . Book directly.
[I presented the book from parcel C on the floor.]

Yes we desire to hold him. Yes, he seems to be quite himself just now.

I also recall a thin black coat or dressing gown affair I used to wear
mornings. (Yes, that's first rate.)

I can see myself sitting in my old armchair before the fire . . open
[open fire] in the library [not read at sitting] (" evening " ?) [Dissent] [See
Note 43, p. 502.]

Wait a moment friend, do not haste.

reading over the paper. Look at me there, James, and see me in the gown
I refer to and answer me.

(Yes, I will tell James, and he will later send you lots of messages, and
come also to see you, I hope, many times himself. He will be very pleased
to receive your pictures of the things you used to do.)

[I never knew him to wear a thin coat or gown mornings while sitting
before the fire. I remember him only as wearing often a different coat when
»o sitting before the fire from that which he did his work in when the
weather was cold. The whole passage savours too much of a description of
one who lives in a library or among books to be used as evidence, especially
the word * 4 gown," which father would never use. I find from my step-
mother, however, that father did use to wear a thin coat in the mornings
when sitting before the fire. — J. H. H.] [Later references to this incident
tnd further study convince me that there is more pertinence in it than the
above note admits. (May 23rd, 1900.)— J. H. H. Of. pp. 54-55.]

Yes, I am glad. It will be pleasant to talk . . talk with him as I
used. James was always a good son, and cared much for me. As I grew
older . . as I grew older he . . we grew together — i.e., companion-
able . . companionable [Correct. — J. H. H.] as we were much

morning.

Digitized by

388

J. H. Hyxliyp, Ph.D.

[part

together. [Not correct. — J. H. H.] And Nannie, I often think of her and
her faithfulness to me . yes faith . . faithfulness. (Yes.)

Did you realise that my bronchial trouble disturbed me much?
. . my . . Perhaps you know about this, but I feel it no more.
(C/. pp. 327-328.)

(Ail the physical troubles are over now.)

Yes, and I feel very well satisfied with myself, quite unlike my former
self, James. (Yes.)

I do not think I can speak with you much longer now, but I will come
when I can and tell you all I have on my mind.

[This whole passage beginning with the flattering allusion to myself has a
singular interest. First it represents just what father would say about me
to anyone else. We did grow more companionable toward the end of his
life, the estrangement caused by my apostacy having been overcome. But
we cannot be said to have been much together. The very opposite was the
fact, as some of my other notes abundantly show, except that we often
talked a great deal with each other when we were together. This allusion to
the faithfulness of Nannie, which is the name of his sister, while it is true,
has no pertinence whatever here, especially when we look at the following
statement in reference to his bronchial trouble, which was perfectly true.
If he had used the name Maggie, which is that of my stepmother, there
would have been extraordinary pertinence in the passage, all the more so when
we know the care and patience with which my stepmother nursed him during
his long illness. (Cf. pp. 342, 366.) This does not seem to me like the
ordinary mediumistic trick, because the word " faithfulness " and the sjiecific
allusion to bronchial trouble are too true and pertinont, the word
"faithfulness" being just what he was accustomed to use to me when
defending my stepmother against criticisms which stepmothers have often to
bear from step-children. It is not less interesting to note also the evident
intention to speak of the bronchial trouble to a stranger who is supposed not
to have known the fact. This word had not been used in any of my sittings,
but from what I have said in regard to his disease, it is pertinent enough to
be called correct, though not technically right. It was the larynx that was
attacked, but the disease had penetrated into the bronchial tubes and they
were badly affected with it. But in a fit of unconsciousness, as it were, in
the attempt to communicate, it is noticeable that there is a change from the
address to the third person to addressing me in the second person. There is
no significance in this except that it may help to show the possible source
of the confusion in the whole passage which can be cleared up in the way I
have spoken of it. — J. H. H.]

(Yes. Can . . .)

I wish George could come to me. (Do you mean to your world /) Yes,
I do. (Why 0 James will U D. this. (Ail right.)

[I do not understand this, though in the light of a later sitting it may be
made intelligible.— J. H. H.]

However, I see it is better so.

Do you remember your sister Annie ? (Did James have a sister Annie f)
[rejieated] Yes. [This is correct, and Dr. Hodgson seems to have forgotten
what came in this name at my sittings. — J. H. H.]

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix II.

389

(All right. I will tell him.) She is here with me, and she is calling
to you.

(Mr. Hyslop.) Yes, I hear you. What do you wish ?

Well, I am glad to know this, and I will surely look him up, but you will
remember one thing, and that is that my Annie is not yours. (Yes, I under-
stand. She's with you.) Yes, and I will surely find your father and know
him. These kind friends will help me to find him. (Yes, they will ; they
will introduce you to him. I shall be very pleased if they will.)

Was he very orthodox, do you think ? (Fairly so.) [This question is not
like father, though it is not impossible. — J. H. H.]

Well, there is no need for it here. However, we won't discuss that until
later, when we know each other better. (He was a Wesleyan Methodist.)

Well, this of course was more or less orthodox. [This sounds like an echo
of Dr. Hodgson's "fairly so." — J. H. H.] (Yes, oh yes, indeed.)

Exactly, well we will get on finely soon. I know this perfectly well.
But I must get accustomed to this method of speech, and see how I can best
express my [best written above express with caret belowj my thoughts to you.

I am now thinking of my own things and concerns.

I can preach myself very ivell. Ask my son if this is not so. I recall
many things which I would gladly have changed if it had been as clear to
me as it is now. I wish I could take my knife a moment, as it will . . .

[Knife, from parcel C, given to hand.]

It will help me when I return to you. I do not think I can say more to
you now.

(Well, I am very pleased to have had this talk with you, and I am sure
that James will be glad to read what you told me about the medicine and
gown and reading the paper and so on.)

Well I have so many things to say of much greater importance in a way
later when I can fully and clearly express myself.

I am anxious to do much for him. (Yes.) Will you excuse me, I must
go. (Yes, certainly. Good-bye for the present. Thank you very much.)

[Excitement.] There is one tune going through my mind. Listen.
Nearer my God U> Thee. Hyslop.

[This whole passage in reference to Dr. Hodgson's father and the state-
ments purporting to come from my father are full of difficulties. With excep-
tion to the allusion to my sister Annie it might be taken to be a deliberate
fabrication of the medium on the suggestion from Dr. Hodgson's mention of
his father being a Wesleyan Methodist. The statement of my father that he
could " preach " and that I could confirm it is not true, except in the sense
that it would be true of any one who took as much interest in religious
Batters as he did, who spoke at prayer meetings as often as he did, and
who commented on a chapter in the Bible in substitution for a sermon, as he

(Yes.)

390

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

did when we had no preaching. But he would never call this " preaching,"
and he never undertook any function in such services that could be mistaken
for " preaching," at least within ray experience and recollection. It seems
to be an idea that might be readily awakened by association with the con-
ception of a Wesleyan Methodist in any brain acquainted with their laymen's
habits. This is also confirmed by the quotation from the hymn, " Nearer*
my God, to Thee." For the very interesting fact here is that father belonged
to a denomination that would not tolerate either hymn singing or instrumental
worship in its religious services, and father never knew a hymn in his
life, while this hymn is a perfectly familiar one to Wesleyans and others. It
would be the last thing in the world that he would quote at all, and especially
to prove his identity to me. His attendance at church also was so strict that
he never went to any church where he would even hear a hymn. He did not
even, after 1858, go to any church whose doctrines and practices most
resembled his own, but only to his own congregation. Hence this quotation
looks like the very worst attempt to establish identity, and runs the risk of
doing the very opposite. It is probable that father had heard this hymn at
some funeral service where it was sung, but he certainly could not quote it
freely, and would not be tempted consciously or purposely to mention
it in order to identify himself to me. He was not opposed to singing
hymns for secular purposes, and during the Moody and Sankey excite-
ment allowed us children to sing them at home on evenings with accom-
paniment of organ music. But he would not tolerate them in any other
connection.

If we have a right to interpret the passage as an automatism and repre-
sentation of conceptions which any person, incarnate or discarnate, would
naturally have, and as a most probable memory of my father, we could explain
the incidents on the spirit hypothesis, but it would be far from affording any
evidence for it. On the contrary, it awakens suspicions in this regard and
requires overwhelming evidence of a better import to justify any attempt to
explain away difficulties. — J. H. H.] [See Note 31, p. 413. (May 23rd,
1900). -J. H. H.]

fFurther consideration has led me to think that I attributed too little
importance to the substitute for preaching which my father gave us in the
form of comments on a chapter in the Bible. I found also a striking
significance in the mention of the hymn. See Note 31, p. 413.]

Friend, he is awakening, and seems very clear this day.

I hope he will feel free soon as we do now.

*****

[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]

Who's the little dark man ?

He's very persistent any way, isn't he, Rector ?

You'll manage him if you keep on.

I don't want anybody . . .

Good-bye.

I didn't want to ache [?] any,— I didn't want to go. I don't want to go
into the dark world any more.

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix II.

391

Recoixl of Sitting. February 20th, 1899.

R. H.

[Rector writes.]

♦ * * ♦ ♦

I come to meet you once more. I am nearer than before.

I think the way begins to seem brighter to me. Have you not any word
for me from my son ?

(Yes. He says that he doesn't know about that morphine, but he was
thinking of some patent medicine.)

Oh yes I will think and ans him . . ans. . . yes. Do not hurry
me, friend, and I will give it to you.

(Yes, no hurry . . .) I wish (perhaps you would like . . .)
you would ask him if he does not recall the fact of my taking several grains
of morphia before I took the Hyomi.

[It is interesting to observe that the word Hyomei is spelled almost
correctly here, though it was not pronounced or spelled by me in
Mrs. P.'s presence. Dr. Hodgson, however, had pronounced it several
times in the previous sittings. As already remarked, it is the medicine
that I had asked my father about in my earlier sitting, and in the absence
of myself from this sitting might be given much evidential value, but
for the necessity of reckoning with Mrs. P.'s subliminal and its memory. —
J. H. H.]

I think he will recall it yet. It was, if I remember rightly . . rightly,
I think, some months before when I had a bad or ill turn, he says.

I will try and recall the name of that preparation. Anything more
before I go ? (I think best one thing at a time.)

Yes, I think so, friend, but we find he does better by returning . .
ret . . after we also have gone and returned.

Friend, repeat his question to me. + [Imperator.]

(*' Do you remember any other medicine besides the Hyomei and strych-
nine you mentioned before, and that you took at the time you took them, or
near that time ? ")

We hail thee, friend. All will be well. [From Imperator.]

I, personally, have much to do, friend. R. [From Rector.]

(Yes. I understand, Rector.)

* * * * *

Yes. I took . . . [Hand raps once emphatically.]
Yes. I took MMMU...MUN...M..
Give me something.

[Metal box, spectacle case, and knife and book given.]
Yes. I took Munion . . M U N Y 0 N . . . sounds like
. . . and he repeats again and again.
Gerniside (Gerniside V) [Assent]
Yes. G . . Germiside.
Did you realise my voice was weak, friend ?

[TTiifl allusion to his having had a weak voice is pertinent and true, but I
onnot give it as much force as it might have. But it is interesting. —
J. H. H.]

Digitized by Google

392

J. H. Hyslo]), Ph.D.

[part

(I didn't know.) I say it was. H. (I think I remember that James told
me so, or wrote about it.) It was quite, but I am anxious to speak plainly
to and for you.

(Yes, do not worry. Feel quite calm, and think quietly of any other
medicines that you took that you think James knows about.)

I took at one time some preparation of Oil, but the name has gone from
my memory. I know everything so well when I am not speaking to you.
Do you hear me. (Yes. I . .) Now . .

[These attempts to give the names of the medicines which he had taken
in addition to those mentioned in my sittings have some interest. The one
that I had in mind when I sent on the question is not mentioned, and I have
had to send West to find out whether there was any truth in the statements
made here. I recognised at once the internal probability that at least some
of them were correct, as the disease would require some form of Germicide,
and some preparations of oil would serve it well. I went also and inquired
of the druggists in this city, without telling them what I wanted the informa-
tion for, whether the first-named medicine, "Munyon's . was for
catarrh, and I found one by that name for this disease, which was what father
thought he had. I found also that, though there was no special medicine by
the name of Germicide, there were many medicines called by that name or
said to have that property, which were or could be used for catarrh, and I
knew merely that father had taken many patent medicines for his trouble.
But I had to wait word from the West from my stepmother for any positive
evidence as to the statements here made. My mother answers as follows : —

Dear James, — As Frank has written at length, I will answer your
questions briefly.

1st. Your father never took any medicine in his sickness that sounded
like "Munion."

2nd. The inhaler that you sent him was the only thing that could be
called a Germicide.

3rd. He did not take any preparation of oil internally. — Affectionately,

Mother.

It must be remembered that I did not tell my stepmother what had been
told at the sitting, but simply asked the simple questions whether father had
ever taken the medicines named. My brother answers the same questions
as follows : —

120, East 3rd Street, Bloomington, Indiana,

February 23rd, 1899.

My Dear James, — When father was using an inhaler for his sore throat
he used a medicine called Hyomei. It was a medicine put up in New York
by R. T. Booth, and you got it for him, father, along with the inhaler and
sent it to him. This Hyomei was claimed by Mr. Booth to be a germicide
and hence to be a specific for all lung and throat troubles.

Father had Rev. Morton Malcom to send him from Pennsylvania, I
think, a bottle of medicine called Japanese oil. It was a strong liniment for
external application chiefly. I think he used some of it in that way, but did
not take it internally.

Frank E. Hyslop.

Digitized by

Appendix II.

393

New York, March 11th, 1899.

I called to-day at one of the wholesale drug stores to inquire if among
Munyon's medicines there was one called Germicide, and was answered in
the affirmative. It is a medicine for catarrh and is taken by an inhaling
process. I was shown the apparatus by which the medicine is taken, and it
consists of a bottle with an arrangement for dissolving the medicine and
inhaling the vapor through a tube. The emphatic answer of my brother and
mother that father never took any of this prevents any use of the statements
at the sitting except as a failure. It is interesting, however, to note that
this medicine called Germicide, or rather Catarrh medicine denominated as a
Germicide, is just what father would have considered with his idea of what
his disease was. It is more than probable that he had seen and consulted various
advertisements, but I have not been able at this date to discover the slightest
evidence that he ever took it. Assuming that he had often thought of it we
can explain the statement at the sitting as consistent with the supposition
that we were dealing with a discarnate spirit, but without farther evidence
that he had thought of it the incident must be set down with that of the
morphine as an error, and in no case as evidence. — J. H. H.]

[See Notes 32, p. 413, and 33, p. 414.]

(I wonder if you could not tell Rector various things that would be
important for James and let him tell me.)

He can tell me distinctly only when I am not speaking to thee, friend,
but . . .

(Yes. I understand, Rector. But, for example, as I tried successfully
long ago with the old communicator Phinuit, I asked him when I was not
here . . . )

Ah yes. I will be glad to do this for thee and bring his answers to thee
on the . . on the third day. U D.

(Rector. Why, if this is the best way of getting clear answers, why is it
needful to bring him here at all ?)

So that he will see me operate and U D how and why we reach thee, that
he may not be perplexed at our inquiries, also to be better able to recollect
his earthly experiences, through coming into contact with his objects,
etc. UD.

(It is absolutely necessary, then ?)

Yes, otherwise He would not have it so. But thou wilt remember that
it requires time and patience to clear up his mind absolutely in regard
to his earthly life. Thou wilt U D that much of it is gladly forgotten by
all of us.

(Yes, indeed. I think perhaps it might be better not to ask any more
of his son's questions, but let Mr. Hyslop himself continue to recall what he
thinks best.)

[This statement by Rector is hardly consistent with that made by my
father. That is, Rector says that the earthly recollections are so likely to
be forgotten and father says that he can recall them so clearly when he is not
speaking through this machine. I had asked Dr. Hodgson why he did not
have Rector ask father the question away from the sitting and bring the
answer himself. This recommended itself to me because it seems that
Rector can think and write with perfect clearness, and that it could not be

394

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

said of him ttiAt the conditions caused any special confusion. This then is
the answer that we get when the trial is made, and it seems to quite
contradict the implications of father's statements written by Rector himself
as the communications themselves indicate. The explanations are not
impossible, and apart from the statements made about the effect of the
machine and the clear memory away from it might be treated as reasonable.
Of course, if Rector means that the forgetfulness occurs when in contact
with the machine we can understand it, but the statements suggest diffi-
culties.— J. H. H.]

Yes, wisely so, friend, and we agree perfectly that this is the better way,
as thou didst do by George and others, because it only leads [leades] to
confusion [confussion] of thought and at times brings back memories which
are glad to be forgotten. The pleasantest [pleasantes] side of his earthly
experiences will be recollected, and expressed by so doing . . expressed
by . . after which he will be able to tell all.

Friend, whilst speaking he is like in comparison to a very sick . .
very sick man . . whilst . . yet when we take his objects it clears
him greatly for the moment.

Now I am told to take what I can from them and recall myself the
question, take it to him, also one any other that is of a pleasing nature, and
return in due time to thee with a definite answer. R.

Meanwhile give me question and I will take it. (The medicine question?)
No, I can take two easily, since I UD the first well.

(Well, I do not know surely what is of a pleasant nature.)

I will take Cooper, I think. (Yes. Samuel Cooper.) Yes, is it Samuel \

(** Do you remember Samuel Cooper, and can you say anything about
him?")

SAMUEL. Yes. Very well. Very well, friend, I have it.

(And you know the medicine one ?) Yes. Listen. What other kind of
medicine did you take besides the Hyomi and [or written over the and]
about that time . . . and or . .

(Yes, and besides also the Strychnine.) Strycnia

Yes. I do. [toSp.]

I will act faithfully and do the very best with this, friend. (Yes. Thank
you, Rector.) I will return as per appointment and give it thee straight off.
(Yes, thank you.)

♦ * ♦ ♦ *

[Here the hand, in touching the objects, pushed the metal box over the
edge of the table, and it fell and opened, revealing the contents, spectacles,
pen, and folded paper packet.]

What have I done ?

(The box that was here, you accidentally with the hand knocked off the
table to the floor. There is no harm done. You may now show him the
contents.)

[I had fulfilled the request made on February 8th (p. 380), and on
several occasions for several hours together when alone in my rooms, had
placed this box on my table near my arm-chair, keeping it of course still
closed.]

[Much excitement over these contents.]

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix II.

395

Oh I remember so well this pr. of spectacles, and the place in on [super-
posed on in] which it used to lie on my desk. I can see
it all, and I near the ... I also had near it a paper
cutter, a writing pad, a number [of] rests . . rests
for this, and two glass bottles, yes, one square in shape
and the other rather round. This was your sister's.
(Which J) [Paper packet held up.] (In the paper ?) Yes. (What is it ?)

Let him look at it a moment.

I am thinking . . it is the two little pieces of what we used to call
money if I mistake not, which I do not think I do.

[I here took up the paper packet by the middle and felt what I inferred
to be the edges of two coins ']

I cannot really say more to you now. I am getting weak. Let me look
at this again. I am sure, however. Good-bye.

[This whole passage about everything except the recognition of the
spectacles is false. I, of course, knew nothing about the incidents,, but in-
quired of my stepmother and brother in regard to them without telling them
what the statements were. I find that father never kept these spectacles on
his desk, nor the case, but both of them in the pocket of trousers which he
wore on occasions of going to church or visiting, so that he would not forget
them. Moreover, he had no writing pad, no rest for such, and never kept
any but an ink bottle on his desk. The allusion to the coins was also false.
I had wholly forgotten what the little piece of paper contained when I sent it
with the case and its contents, but I knew that the object or objects were
not coins. I have a record of what they are, but refused to consult' it before
sending. They are most probably what Dr. Hodgson suspected them to be,
and I am quite sure that I can guess whose they are. But I know that they
were not my sister's.

The mediumistic memory is quite apparent here, as both the writing pad
and the paper cutter are recalled at once in connection with the articles which
the accident brought to the attention. — J. H. H.] [Later inquiry alters both
my knowledge of the facts and my judgment of the case. See Note 34, p. 414.]

f Good-bye, good-bye, Mr. Hyslop.) I am going. I cannot work for
more now.

Friend. Listen. I cannot hold him . . (No . . . ) he is going
and I am going presently behind him U D. (Yes. I do.)

What can I do for thee but bestow my blessings on thee, friend, and all
that thou dost do. (Amen. I shall be grateful.)

I could not, as it would be impossible, re . . .

[Hand bows as in prayer for a short time.]

remain here longer for him. Friend, hear me kindly . . hear me.
We will meet Mr. D. on the fifth and . . and thou wilt U D.
(Yes, fifth this week.) after past Sabbath. (I understand.)
Do friend in thy heart be true to God.

Friend, it is wise that we depart, and ere we go we give thee our
blessings. May God the Supreme watch over thee for all time. Farewell.
+ {R} (Amen.) [Cross in air.]

See note at end of sitting.

Digitized by Google

396

J. H. HysUyp, Ph.D.

[part

[Note. — Here, while putting the paper packet back in metal box, I felt
what appeared to be very distinctly not coins, but elliptical objects. I
inferred at the moment perhaps the lenses from spectacles. — R. H.]

[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]

Is that a blessing / Say it. * *

Father be and abide with thee for evermore.

Servus Dei .... I don't know.

I have all these to look out for. I leave thee well.

Go and do the duties before thee.

Blessings on thy head.

The light shall cease.

Why do you say that ?

Are you going ? Good- bye.

I want to go along the same path with you.

Hear the whistle. [This was an ordinary " earthly " whistle which I also
heard.]

Not to worry.

What did you reach out your hand for ? You made me all so warm. I'm
all of a inspiration.

[Mrs. P. looked flushed, almost as if she had been walking on a warm
day. She then ** heard her head snap."]

Record of Sitting, February 22nd, 1899.

R. H.

[Rector writes.]

Rector. (Good morning.) We hail thee, friend, and bring light to thee.

Waste no idle moments in trying to enlighten those whose minds are
lying [line] dormant. It is a useless task [time written first, then ask super-
posed on the letters me]. Time alone can do this. We only ask thee to work
on faithfully and earnestly in one field until we bid thee reach out beyond
that field to others. R. . . Bid . . Bid. (Yes.)

[January 13th, 1900. This might have applied to a long conversation
which I had on the previous morning with a caller in my office concerning
certain aspects of psychical work. — R. H.]

I will not remain alone here long, friend, as they are coming and will be
here presently. (Yes.)

Friend*, art them well ? (Yes, I think I am perfectly well, Rector, thank
ynu. ) Good news awaits thee and greater help. Peace be to thy mind ever-
wwr*. (Amen,)

(Sliall I *4sk about sitters now i)

Presently, I am here holding the light whilst + returns. I will be able
to enlighten thee presently.

Friend t we boldly assert that what we teach will deter from sin to a
greater degree than anything which [has] heretofore been given to mortal
man. R. Coming. U D. . . that what [Difficulty in reading the
w*<rd what above, necessitating repetition.] (Yes I understand, yes.)

Digitized by

XLl.]

Appendix II.

397

HAIL. (Hail, Imperator.) We welcome thee and on thee bestow our
blessing. We are producing a change in the light.

We bring first Mr. Hyslop, who hails thee as we do.

(Yes. I . . . articles ?) [Metal box and contents given.]

Yes. I remember quite well of taking this vapor preparation to which I
have previously given mention and also the other U D, and the name Cooper
is very clear to me also as I had a friend by the name who was . . P
. . of philosophical [pshliosophical ?] turn of mind and for whom I had
great respect, and who . . . with whom I had some friendly discussion
and correspondence. I had also several tokens [?] which I recollect well.
One was a photo to which I referred when James was present and in
my collection, among my collection.

Do you recall, James, the one to which I refer ? I know this clearly and
I have met him here. He is if you recall on this side of life with me and
came some years before I did. I liked much his philanthropic views and as
you will remember a close companionship with him. I am too weak to
remain, will return in a moment.

Among my collection of letters you will also find several of his which I
preserved.

I remember a discussion on the subject of regelego [?] regnal [?] regelnion
with him some years ago. Doubtless you are thinking of this also. Religion
. . yes sure [?]

There are many things I can recall concerning him later. [See Notes
29, p. 410, and 39, p. 499].

Look for my letters, also the photo to which I refer, James.

Now what else can I do for you ? Do you remember the stick I used to
carry with the turn in the end, on which I carved my initials ? If so, what
have you done with it? They are in the end . . with the turn . .
t U R N, he says. (Yes, I understand.)

I used to use it for emphasising expression occasionally.

[Hand strikes pencil on book several times.]

(Thumping down ?) [Hand keeps repeating a turning motion.]

Yes, he turns it about and then caresel . . carelessly drops it . .
the end of it. U D. (Yes. I think so.)

If not, speak now before he becomes in any way confused.

[This long and complex message has much interest, though I cannot say
that it is evidential. The first statement about the medicine is correct. The
Hyomei was a vapour which had to be taken by means of a special instru-
ment which I got at the time I got the medicine itself. It is impossible to
aay, however, whether the communicator intends here to thus characterise
the medicines which he had named previously to Dr. Hodgson, or the
Hyomei, which he mentioned to me at my fourth sitting. The phrase, "and
also the other," makes it probable, and perhaps conclusive, that the vapour
refers to the Hyomei. If so it is an interesting coincidence, and not less so
with the fact that much of the passage is not true.

It is evident that the predominant idea about this Samuel Cooper is that
he was of "a philosophical turn of mind," which is, as I have said before,
absolutely false. It is true that the two men differed radically in their

398

H. Hy»lo2>, Ph.D.

[part

religious views, at least in the opinion of each of them, for one was a
Wesleyan, and the other, my father, a Presbyterian. They have had
44 friendly discussions " on the subject of religion, which the usually supposed
difference between philosophy and religion in the common mind might
suggest to any brain, but they never carried on any correspondence. The
statement that he had met him " here " is pertinent, and also that 44 he came
some years before I did," is exactly correct. From what I have just said
above about the correspondence it will be apparent that there are no letters
from this man in father's collection.

The reference to a photo in his "collection" is not definite enough to
make anything out of it. Nor was it definite enough at my sitting to
recognise what was meant. But I now recall a large photo of father which
might be meant, especially when I recall that at my sitting he wished me to
have it, he always knowing that I would value it most and be more likely to
keep it carefully. But it would have to be more jMirticuJarly indicated here
in order to suppose that either this or any other particular picture was
intended. It is the same memory, however, that is here at work that
claimed to be my father at my sittings.

This reference to the 44 stick with a turn in the end, on which I carved
my initials " has some jjossibihties in it. I know he had a cane with a turn in
it at the end, the usual curved end for holding it. I gave it to him myself, but
I do not know whether he ever carved his initials on it or not. I rather think
he did not do so. But as he had more than one 41 stick' he may have had
one such as is here described. I shall have to inquire in the West about
it.— J. H. H.

Since writing the above a letter from my brother says: 44 Father never
had a cane or 4 stick ' with his initials carved on it. He never used a cane or
atick to emphasise his talk."

My brother who wrote this was probably too young to remember that an
older brother and sister with myself once gave father a cane, an ebony cane,
with his initials carved on it, and that it was lost on the train while travelling.
But this cane was not curved at the top or anywhere. It was a perfectly
straight stick. I refused to mention this fact until I learned whether he had
ever had any other stick answering to the description given at the sitting.
The cane I gave him was curved at the top, but had no initials on it when I
gave it to him, and I did not know whether any initials had been put on it
by him or not. It was not his habit to do anything of this sort. He valued
a cane only for its use and not as a memento, so that I should not naturally
expect what he here mentions as anything done by himself, though that is
not what is necessarily implied by the statement. I shall inquire further
about the emphasis.

In my first correspondence regarding the 44 stick " or cane I did not tell
anything about the statements made to Dr. Hodgson in Boston, and the
answers came as already recorded. The attempt to make clear at the sitting that
the communicator had a curved cane in mind suggested to me that possibly
there was an attempt to indicate a distinction that would be natural between
the cane owned years before on which father's initials were engraved, and the
cane with the curved end that I had given him. If this were what the com-
municator had in mind it would have been a very forceful choice of evidential

XLI.]

Airpendix II.

399

incidents. Hence with the suspicion that the inquiry regarding the facts
needed to be pushed farther I wrote to my brother telling him what had
been said at the sitting, and asking that he, my stepmother and my sister
think the matter over and see if they did not recall the fact that father did
have a cane with his initials on it. I referred to what I had remembered
about the one given father by my brother and sister years ago. I asked also
further about the emphasis mentioned at the sitting. The replies are
unanimous in regard to the question of the curved cane and initials on it,
which were quite consistent with my expectations in the matter. I had
known of no such cane [Cf. p. 415], and the carving of his initials on it was
so inconsistent with my father's habits, as he never indulged in whittling or
carving of any kind, that I could not imagine its truth, though granting its
possibility. But the answers, one and all, state that he had no cane whatso-
ever on which his initials were carved by himself, and that the curved cane
that I had sent him had not been touched in this way. In so far as regards
his use of the stick for emphasis there is not the same unanimity of opinion.
My stepmother says : "I never knew him to use his cane to emphasise his
words in conversation — was always deliberate." My brother wrote in his
first reply, which was mislaid, and found when the second letter was answered,
that he 44 never knew him to use his cane to emphasise his expression." In
the second letter he writes : " Neither mother [stepmother] nor I remember
him to have used his cane to emphasise his talk. But Henrietta says she
remembers distinctly that he did it at times, especially in animated conversa-
tion. She is very positive about this. I remember [and my stepmother
says the same] that he often sat with his cane across his knees or resting
his hands and chin on it. But as to his using it to emphasise his talk I
cannot be positive, though like yourself I have a faint impression that he

I may add that even if there were unanimity of opinion as to his
occasional emphasis of his conversation in the manner alluded to at the
sitting it could have little evidential value, because, as my stepmother
correctly remarks, father was usually so calm and deliberate in his conversa-
tion and discussions that there was little temptation to resort to any forms
of emphasis of this kind, though my impression had been exactly that of my
sister, that in the occasional animated talks in which he sometimes engaged he
did emphasise himself in this way. But it was not a habit or characteristic
of him as it perhaps is of myself, and so could not be used as evidence of
identity. It has been necessary, on account of this characteristic in myself,
to push the inquiry on this point to the end, because the question of
telepathy between my mind and the medium, at any distance, is concerned in
the matter, though in that case there is no excuse for allusion to either a
curved cane with initials on it, nor to any other with such initials, for I
own no curved cane, never carried any whatsoever until a few years ago,
when I cut two in the mountains and had them made up. But there is
nothing in the communications that would apply to me except the tendency
to emphasise with a cane when talking in an animated way while carrying it.
—J. H. H.] [See p. 57, and Notes 35, p. 415, and 92, p. 533.]

James. [The hand was apparently listening to Sp., and I turned to
arrange some sheets of paper on the floor.]

did.

400

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Look friend . . .

do you wish to go to the College this A. M. If so I will remain here
. . U D.

[The hand between each word of the first sentence above stopped writing
and made a turn, somewhat like the motion that the hand would make in
wiping once round the bottom of a basin ending palm up.]

(Rector, now, in this way ?) Wait [ ?] [Hand turns to Sp., then tome.]

(Rector, that way ?) [I read the sentence over, imitating the movements
of the hand.] Yes, (With a twirl of the stick T) nervously.

This is almost identical with his gestures . . gestures [Jestures].
He is amused at our description, friend, and seems to vaguely U D our
imitation.

Draws it across his so-called knee, lets it fall by his side, still holding on
to the turned end . . drawers . . draws . . d R A W S . . end.
Hears sounds of music, to which he listens attentively, with the exception
of keeping time with the smaller end of his stick . . attentively . .
att . . at . .

Do you hear me ?

[I thought here that the hand continued listening to Sp., but it had
apparently turned to me for some remark.] [See Notes 36, p. 416, and 92,
p. 533.]

Speak to him, friend, and ask him anything thou dost wish, he seem*
at a loss to U D what is required of him at this instant.

(Mr. Hyslop, I have a letter to you from James.) Yes. Will he speak to
me? (He has sent it to me to read to you.) Oh, friend, do so as it will
assist us very much in trying to keep his mind clear. (Yes, he
says . . . ) Sloidy (He writes as follows :) [I here begin to read the
following letter :]

"New York, February 21a/, 1899.
"My dear Father, — I have been very glad to receive the messages
which you are sending me with the help of Rector and through my friend
Hodgson. I hope you will make your mind perfectly clear and free. Tell
me first about any of your earthly experiences that are most frequently on
your mind. I have many of them in my mind, and shall be glad for you to
talk to me about them or any other things that are passing through your
thoughts ii bout your old friends and neighbours, your experiences with them,
jour home and its life, and all with whom you were most intimate. I shall
glail ru hear about them. I remember when you took me to the station
to Btrtrl to college. Do you remember how you felt then ? Do you remember
the collage to which you sent me at that time ? I remember it so well, and
Mi-- wu\ I liad to go to reach it. I remember, too, how aunt Nannie used to
oare W us when we were young. It was soon after that I started to the
Hi^li School to prepare for college. Do you remember this and all that
<Kxmrred at and about that time ? Tell me all about your dear friends then
and afterward. I remember, too, how we used to go to church. Do you
rocjtll Mm*, and how we managed it ? Tell my friend Hodgson, and I shall be
very - ul to learn it from him and to do all that I can to help you. If there
ny thing that troubles you tell Hodgson about it, and he will send it to
I hope thus to hear from you often, and shall take pleasure in listening

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix II.

401

to all that you can tell me about yourself and old associates both at home
and in the church. — Your affectionate son,

[After " Do you remember how you felt then ? "]

Yes 1 do, well. At the parting. It was one of the most hopeful of my
life. And do you remember what I said to you then ? Write, as I cannot
see you often if . . be . . . and . .

[Pause] repeat slowly, his thoughts are clearing a little.

(James says . . .)

I have it. Write often as I shall be with you constantly in thought,
James. This is the starting point in your life. Take advantage of it,
improve your time, let me know how you are getting on daily and keep up a
stout heart. Want for nothing. Keep to the right, be just in all things.
UD . . improve . . I . . (Yes.) [read over.]

Yes, and I shall be lonely enough, but I look forw . . lonely . . look
forward to the future.

I think, friend, he has nearly the words, as he seems very clear about

[This passage alleging to be what father felt and said to me when parting
from me at the station as I started to college is a very good reproduction of
what he felt and said, except the statement " want nothing," which his
pocket-book would not have justified him in saying, as the phrase is
usually understood, though it is literally what he did say. But correct as the
drift is, it cannot be quoted as evidence, as it is just what any brain could
concoct. If any specific incident of the occasion had been mentioned I
might give some weight to the accuracy of the sentiment. — J. H. H.]

(Very good. Shall I go on i) [Cross.]

Yes, wait just a moment.

[I continue reading the letter. After " I remember, too, how we used to
go to church : " the hand bends down on table for a few moments. Prayer ?]
[After end of letter.]

Gt>d bless you, my son. Do you remember this expression. Yes I do
remember.

[The phrase was a common one with him whenever we parted. — J. H. H.]
I wish you to know that to me James was all I could ask for a son, and
when I left him or he left me I was heart-broken in one sense, but I felt that
I had much to look forward to. [Perfectly accurate. The only occasion on
which I ever saw him shed tears, December 10th, 1899. — J. H. H.]

I remember the coach very well, and the roughness of the roads and
country. I also remember Aunt Nannie and her motherly advice to you all,
and I look back to her with a great gratitude for her kindness to us all. Do
you remember Ohio, James [not read] sounds like Ohio [not read] O . . .

(JlQdQS^ (O). O H I O . . and anything about Bartlett. I have not

seen him yet, but hope to in time. I am trying to think of the principal of
your school and what he said to me about George. I am still troubled about
him, and if you can help me in any way to se . . . by sending me any-
thing encouraging about him, I shall feel better I know.
(Yes, I will write this of course to James.)

J. H. Hyslop.

it. R.

402

J. H. Hydojh Ph.D.

[PART

This, James, is the one thing I wish to right if possible, and perhaps you
will be able to help me.

(Yes, I am sure that James will do all that is best about George. Don't
worry about him.)

Well, if you can help me free my mind in regard to him and his life I can
be freer and reach you clearer. I am much troubled about this, and I have
been praying for all to come out right. You will join me in this I know.

(I will, indeed. I will help all I can, by prayer and telling James. You
can speak quite freely and unburden yourself completely. )

Oh, if I can only do this in this one thing I will not be disturbed more.

(Yes. Do free your mind.)

You see, I left with this on my mind, and I cannot dispose of it until I
have learned from James that he will not feel troubled in this regard. We
had our own thoughts and anxieties together regarding this . . this . .
this as J [ ? ] and Aunt Nannie also.

(Do you mean she was anxious with you ?) [Assent] he says yes.
[This whole passage, started by the reference to going to church which I
had made in my letter, is in many respects a very remarkable one, though it
will not appear so evidential as is desired. But the expression, *' God bless
you, my son," is just what might be started in his mind by my referring to
the memory of going to church, especially if we assume what is here claimed
to be the fact : namely, that the mind is not clear. But passing this aside as
useless beyond the fact that it was his natural expression, though perhaps
equally natural to most mediums, the more striking incidents begin with the
remembrance of the coach and 44 the roughness of the roads and country."
The use of the word " coach " is not natural for father, as he did not use it,
but always spoke of such a vehicle in the country as a carriage. " Coach "
was a specific term for the vehicle of that name used in the cities. But
when I wrote my letter to Dr. Hodgson I had in mind just the conditions
here described — the rough country roads — though I thought specially of the
alternative riding and walking which father, my brother and myself had to
do when it was too rough to take the carriage. I wanted to see if I could
call out some such facts and the place to which we went. The main object
was the latter, which would have been absolutely conclusive to any one who
would read the facts. It is not less remarkable to find my aunt Nannie
appreciatively mentioned in this connection, as she was associated with this
period of our lives, and father had every reason to be grateful to her for her
kindness. My mother died in 1869, and Aunt Nannie came to keep house
for father, as she was his sister, and there were six of us to be cared for. I
wns rhti oldest and only fifteen years old. She attended the United
Presbyterian Church, to which father did not belong, and sometimes the
necessity of getting her to her own church at one place and the rest of us
to mtra at another was an additional reason for our going with father on
horsebick. We took but one horse and alternately rode and walked. But
usually the reason for this was the roughness of the roads and the necessity
■ wulking at times to keep warm. When the weather permitted we took
horses enough for all of us. The roads were terribly rough. This was
long before the turnpikes were made, and the roads have been good in
that region for twenty-five years, so that the mention of the rough roads

XLI.]

Ap])evdix II.

403 V

is pertinent in the extreme for the time indicated. They were not rough
in Indiana, whither he moved in 1889. It should be remarked that the
statements were made when I was not present, and that this is the first
reference to specific facts in the State mentioned.

The perturbed state of mind indicated in regard to my brother George is
very interesting, and pertinent. The reference contains the thoughts of
several years, and might be construed to apply also to many anxieties that
he felt about him in connection with my brother's care of father's property
in the northern part of the State of Ohio. But the immediate time to which
this mention of him in connection with the principal of the school has refer-
ence is an earlier period than the care of my father's property, though
closely connected with it in other relations than time, and what it means will
be seen when I have called special attention to the wonderful accuracy of the
reference to Ohio. This was his native State which he did not leave until
1889, and this is the first definite reference to it. It is perfectly coincident
with the mention of the roads and their roughness and the thought of my
aunt Nannie, whom I had suggested, and who had not been with him for over
twenty years. The transition to my brother is so abrupt that I can under-
stand it only as suggested by our going to church together, and this brings up
all the memories connected with our lives. The name "Bartlett" when
I first read it seemed to me to be a part of the nonsense of these experiments.
But when I re-read the record it occurred to me that it was the name of the
township in which my brother lives. But on examination of a legal paper
connected with the property in that township, of which I am an executor,
the name is slightly different, though nearly like this, and if we allow for the
disturbance that might be caused by the difference of time between thinking
the sentences and writing them with the fact that the use of the word
44 yet " in the next sentence might have determined the writing of the last
letters of the name 44 Bartlett," we conjecture a possible importance in this
word of very considerable evidential value. If the word had been
44 Bartlow" it would have been almost overwhelming in its suggestiveness,
and this in spite of the irrelevancy about not having seen him yet. But
thinking that father might have known such a man and corresponded with
him about the northern land, as my brother George was here mentioned, I
took the occasion to ask my aunt Nannie, the only one likely to know
anything about it, as she was closely associated with father in the ownership
of this land, whether she knew of any such person and the possibility of
ather's connection with him especially re this land. Her reply is : " As for
your question I never knew your father to have any dealings with a man by
the name of Bartlett, either in connection with the northern land or any
place else. I would have known if he had any connection with the land."
This strengthens the supposition that the name is an attempt to mention the
name of the township, Bartlow, but it makes it more difficult to explain the
irrelevance about his not seeing him, though true if it was a man he had in
mind. I also suspected that Br. Hodgson had not read the original rightly,
and without telling him what it ought to be, as above indicated, I wrote him
to send me the other possible readings of the original automatic writing. He
sent me the original in answer to my inquiry, and there is only one reading
possible for it, and this is the one given, namely : 44 Bartlett." But putting

2 D 2

404

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

together what I know of my father's anxiety about my brother both at the
time indicated in the next sentence and afterward, there is good reason for
suspecting an attempt, though it be a mere automatism, to give the name of
the township in which my brother lives. And this all the more if we
suppose it an attempt to indicate in this way what is forgotten or could not
be named in regard to the town itself. To see its possible pertinence let mo
show how any one might utter this when the name of the town is forgotten
but the name of the township remembered. Let it stand as follows. 44 Do

you remember Ohio, James, Bartlow township?" This is,

of course, all conjecture, but it is possible, especially as it connects the ■,
mention of my brother, the two causes of mental anxiety here suggested. I
and the time involved in the incidents that I know.

(If we suppose that there is a change in my father's thought after the
word Bartlett we can make the whole passage intelligible on the ground that
the words, "I have not seen him yet," are explained by their reference to
the principal of the school mentioned in the sentence that follows them
This suggestion would meet the difficulties which I raised in the following as
well as in the previous paragraph. May 29th, 1900. — J. H. H.)

Since writing the above comments on the name Bartlett, it has occurred
to me that another possible interpretation than the one 1 have given might
be made, especially on the hypothesis that what we get must be either i
automatisms or mediumistic guessing. Father was very fond of Bartlett
pears, and indeed of pear culture, and had a large orchard of pear trees in
Ohio. As I said, he was very fond of the Bartlett pear, and tried to succeed
in its cidture, but his whole effort at pear culture failed. But it is only the
assumption that we are dealing with automatisms that justifies this far-
fetched interpretation, and as the supposition that it refers to such a fact
would involve a time in his life somewhat separated from the time connected
with the other events considered here it is not to be considered as either
suggestive or important, but only one of those coincidences which should be i
mentioned for the benefit of critics and sceptics of this work. No interpre-
tation that I can put on it, considering the sentence after it, can make it
perfectly clear that any of the possible meanings mentioned is true. It is
the large number of coincidental glimpses into events that are so pertinent
to the case that gives the passage its force. There may, then, be no excuse
for even a possible reference to " Bartlett" pears except the hypothesis of
automatisms from a real spirit, which looks too much like an attempt to see
spiritism at all hazards in the case. But as mediumistic guessing could as
well explain such a conception as automatism we cannot purloin a spiritistic
interpretation for the sake of even making out a possible case. The context
favours either a nonsensical automatism or the interpretation given in the
main part of my notes.

It was my father's intention to send my brother also to college, and he
had him at the high school after I started to college. At first my brother
applied himself to his studies as vigorously as I had ever done. But the last
year or more he gave up much of his time and interest to social life. His
abilities were sufficient to enable him to do this without endangering his
graduation. But my father was afraid that this tendency would grow if my
brother went away from home to college, where he was free from parental

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix II.

405

inspection and influence, and my father went to the principal (this
is the only word he would use) of the high school and talked the
whole matter of my brother and his work over with his teacher,
and came to the conclusion that he would not send him to college.
Afterward he talked the matter over with me, and I urged him to
try it, but he was inexorable, though it was a bitter trial for him
to refuse it. It will be seen then that the reference here is particularly
pertinent and is naturally associated in the state of mind it repre-
sents with the lifelong interest and frequent anxieties he had about him.
The mention of this incident here also explains what he always had in mind
in life when defending my brother against any derelictions of duty regarding
the care of the property. My brother went out to a perfect wilderness, and
where there was no chance for civilised and cultivated persons like himself
to get any proper social satisfaction, and though father lost some money in
the venture, the hard work of my brother and the sacrifices that his life
involved in that region, after his high school education, always induced
father not only to pardon what he would have reprehended in a stranger
more severely, but also to apologise for him when any one else complained
about him. But with all his generosity and charity he was constantly
worried with the affairs connected with the northern land, and often referred
to my brother's education and sacrifices when we wrote or spoke of the
afiairs out there.

The expressed desire that I should not be troubled about him is also
pertinent, as he knew how many times I had been obliged to use his
mediation in order to get my own affairs attended to at all. He always did
his utmost to keep me from misunderstanding the situation, and I have no
doubt that he worried more than I knew about, though I do know how my
stepmother and aunts talked about the matter. The mention of aunt
Nannie again in this connection at the close is also very pertinent. It was
she with whom he most frequently corresponded about this property,
especially as she had by far the larger interest in it. She has often mentioned
to me their correspondence on the management of things there, and I do
not know a more suggestive fact anywhere, taken with the others, than this
singular reference to her, as having a common knowledge and anxiety
regarding my brother George.

On the whole I must consider this passage a strong evidential set of inci-
dents, though some of the gaps have to be filled in from my own memory, or
even pieced out by tolerant interpretation. It is not as definite or objective
as is desirable, and so cannot impress the reader as forcibly as it does myself,
since no one else can see the personal pertinence of the references and
incidents as I can see them, though I think I have made tolerably clear the
possibilities of their pertinence.— J. H. H.]

Now, friend, I would advise thee to get some answer from this gentle-
man's son, saying he will let nothing disturb him concerning this, and give it
to his father here, which will once and for all clear his thoughts of it.

He has gone for a moment.

Thou wilt see there was some special anxiety . . special . . in
regard to this when he left thy world U D. (Yes. I understand.) Since his
son would help him, he can do . . would help him in . . this by saying

406

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

it shall not trouble him. R. (Yes. I understand.) I seldom see a more
devoted father than he is . . devoted . . and James is his favourite son.

Yes, I will tell you more of . . of . . Messenger when I feel
stronger. [The word Messenger has no significance for me. We might con-
jecture that some confusion may have arisen in connection with " some
messenger" on the "other side." (Cf. p 466) (May 29th, 1900).— J. H. H.]
I wish to remind you of all. Did you remind James of my cap ? (Yes.
He does not remember it.) Not remember it ? Ask Nannie. [As later de-
velopments show, I regard this as Rector's mistake for Maggie, the name of
my stepmother. (Cf. pp. 336, 387) (January 8th, 1900).— J. H. H.] (Yes,
he will doubtless make every inquiry.)

You see I was in the West far from him for some time, and my habits of
dress and my doings may not be known to him, but the rest may remember
if he does not. (Yes, was Nannie with you ?) Yes. (Perhaps Nannie can tell
him.) Yes. I know. (Well, he will find all out eventually.)

I shall be glad of this, because I am doing my best to recall everything.
I cannot remain longer now, but I will come again ere long, and recall more
concerning the boyhood days of my children. Good-bye, thank you. (Good-
bye, thank you. I will next time bring you what James says.) Well, does he
not recall my desk and odds and ends ? I am going. I cannot remain.
+ Friend, it would be useless to hold him longer. (Yes.)
[This continued reference to his cap is interesting, and this time it comes
within the reach of possibilities. I said in a note the- first time it was men-
tioned in my last sitting on the 27th of December, that I knew of no such
GAP, ?md did nut think it possible that he ever wore one. My note on the
second mention ■ -f it explained a further attempt to get at some meaning to it.
1 hitd before thi«, and after returning home from my sittings, written to my
HT>qjm other an king her if father had ever worn a cap. The following letter
u I ]vo:ivrr| in reply I interpreted, as did my stepmother, to mean that
III1 vs.t- riMt in ilu habit of wearing a cap, and hence I treated the matter as
of Ho eoimeqneneo. Several other questions were answered in the same
lifter and I quoie from it. " Your note of January 2nd and 3rd received
tu-dJiy and in answer to your inquiries I will say, first, your father never
wore a cap si nee we were married except once, and that was during very cold
weather in H5. He was in the habit of sleeping with his head covered in the
bedclothes, Said his head was cold on top. I thought it was bad for him to
breathe that way, and made a knit cap for him to wear in bed, but it would
nut stay on, and he never wore it more than one night. Necer wore a cap
"i any kind in daytime."

1 took this aN sufficient to condemn the reference, but it has occurred to
we since this frequent reference to the cap that the wish in life to have some
covering for hi* hwad, which was very bald and which suffered from the cold,
might here crop upas an automatism. This possible interpretation is borne
ut here Uy the very pertinent allusion to his separation from me for some
lie in the West, This is correct, and I think my correspondence with my
shows me sufficiently ignorant of many of his things and habits.
L-i Nannie is interesting, especially as he does not say " aunt "
I * rtinent to her at all, but if the name were correct it would
it very evidential, as can be seen from the contents of the

Digitized by Google

Appendix II.

407

letter just quoted. The use of " aunt " in several references containing the
name Nannie and the omission of it in the two or three cases where my step-
mother is concerned suggests that Rector did not catch the name rightly. The
right name may come out later, and if so it will explain this inadvertence. (Of.
pp. 47, 69-74). In the meantime the correctness of the allusion to the separ-
ation between us in connection with the recognition that I do not remember the
cap is an interesting fact when I am told to ask one about it whose name might
be mistaken in this complex process for that of my stepmother. — J. H. H.]

[Further inquiry shows that the cap was a black one, as said in the com-
munication (p. 387). (January 10th, 1900.)— J. H. H.]

We LTD from him that there was a lapse [laps] of a few years between
fbetweene] the meeting of himself and his son. We will learn all from him
in time. R.

(Yes. I think it will not be wise at present to ask any special questions).
[Strong dissent.]

Not, friend, we desire not. When we are sure of his state of mind we
will allow thee to ask anything.

(Yes, and about the medicines, I will not ask any more about that. If you,
Rector, know, and can tell me, well and good, but otherwise, of course,
leave it until he gets clearer. He does not even yet seem to me to be nearly
as clear as I thought he was going to be, and I see that it will probably be
some time yet.)

Ah, yes, we do not realise fully thy time, but we know one thing, and
that is that he will be as [sheet turned] as clear as Mr. W. in a little while.
(Well, Mr. W. has done well.) He will repeat all as well as he, but he was
a very ill man, and rather advanced in thy life. (Elderly ?) [Correct.]

Yes, and has many things going through his mind here, which we are
unable at present to clear for him, yet time alone with our help will do this
. can do this.

Friend, it takes more light than anything else, and we are at times pray-
ing ourselves for help.

Friend, we are in a short time going to meet thee for at least four succes-
sive days for Hyslop, and until then we will only meet thee occasionally, and
do what we can for him . . for him. (Very good.)

♦ * * * *

[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]

There's Mr. Hyslop and Mr. Hodgson. They've just met. Tell him I've
just found him. * * * [Inarticulate, borderline between II and I.]
I.

Be better now.
I see you are.

That's Mrs. Hodgson and the children.

I want to .... I want to fly.

There's Imperator. Friend.

They took — they closed the opening right up.

All the veil is taken off and all the light is gone.

I feel stiff enough.

You hear my head snap, don't you ?

Digitized by Google

408

J. H. Hynlop, Ph.D.

[part

Latest Notes to Appendix II. ; Sittings prom February 7th
to 22nd, 1899.

Short Beach, Angn*t 9th, 1899.
Note 26. — Some time ago a suggestion occurred to me in the use of the
word 44 camp" in the above statements that permits a conjecture here that
illustrates what is possible in this case, and it is not so violent a hyj>othesis
as the absurd one which I rejected in my first note because I was not willing
either to entertain or to state it. I do not hold that the one I am going to
state now is at all probable, but that, in consideration of the nature of these
communications, as already remarked in some interesting cases of confusion,
the supposition is either possible, or serves to show how near the actual truth
the statements are. The conjecture did not occur to me until I became more
or less aware of the fact that in these communications there was often an
associative connection between one message and the following. Having
remarked this, and noting how nearly the word " camp " was to being a
part of the name of a place, Champaign, which my father, mother, sister
Anna, an aunt, and myself visited on the trip out West alluded to just
below, I determined to ask the only person living who could know, whether
we had taken our trip to Chicago and the lake, which I remembered we took
as a fact at that time, after leaving this town. Her reply, that of the aunt
who accomi>anied us on that trip, received this morning, is that we went to
Chicago and the lake after leaving this town. My stepmother writes me
that father often talked to her of this very trip, mentioning the name of the
town whenever he alluded to the trip. The facts then in favor of interpreting
the reference as I conjecture it are as follows. (1) That it was in 1861. The
phrase "some years ago" may be taken as distinguishing between recent
and remoter events. (2) That the trip can properly be described as **a
change " or pleasure trip, though incidentally business connected with some
land was associated with the trip. This, however, concerned only some
fencing and minor matters. (3) That we visited Lake Michigan and Chicago
at the time, making a special journey down to the lake shore while in the
city. (4) That the trip was made after we left Champaign, supposing that
there was some confusion here in getting the word Champaign, so that it
becomes 44 camp." (5) That father very often talked to my stepmother
about this trip. (6) That the message about the trip is closely connected
with the direct mention of a " trip out West." (7) That the use of the word
" one " in this very next message about a trip out West apparently to distin-
guish between more trips than one, several having been made previously on
business, is evidence of an associative nexus between the two messages. (8)
That the doubt expressed in the phrase 44 we or I " in the second message
and connected with the accident involves the same distinction as I have just
mentioned between the two communications. (9) That the very frequent
confusions in these messages which have an undoubted half significance at
least render the reconstruction possible, whatever we may think of its
probability.

But the facts against the interpretation are : (1) That we did not go to
the mountains in this or any other trip, but to the prairies in Illinois. (2)
That it was not after leaving any camp. It was after leaving Champaign.

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Ajypendix II.

409

In order that the reader may see how nearly the passage is to being
absolutely correct I may be allowed to reconstruct it somewhat with the
imaginary confusion that ends in " mountains " and " camp." If we assume
anything like the trouble that was manifest in the guitar incident (Of.
p. 461) the following is conceivable. "I am thinking of the time some
years ago when I went into [Father says ' Illinois.' Rector does not under-
stand this, and asks if he means ' hilly. ' Father says, 'no ! prairies.'
Rector does not understand. Father says, 'no mountains.' Rector
understands this as 4 No ! Mountains.' and continues.] the mountains
for a change with him, and the trip we had to the lake after we left
[Father says, 'Champaign.' Rector understands 'camp,' and continues.]
the camp." The name of the town is usually pronounced Shampam, and
according to my stepmother my father so pronounced it when living, though
my own recollection is that he often pronounced it Campane. But of course,
we do not know the various tendencies to error which occur in the trans-
mission of such messages. Compare with this the mistakes of "New" for
"Ewen " (p. 631), " regicide " for " reconciler (p. 631), " idle " for " Italian "
(p. 631), "motion" for "emotions" (p. 629), " murder " for " weather "
(p. 631), "turnips" for "guantlets " (p. 627). I do not present the above
reconstruction, however, as probable, but only as an indication of what
is possible, and wish to be very cautious even in suggesting such speculative
possibility.

But the right to reconstruct such messages is at least illustrated, if not
justified, by such incidents as occurred in connection with Question 7, p. 619,
in my experiments on the Identification of Personality. (Cf. also pp. 608-

NoU 27. — On June 27th I read these sittings over to my stepmother, my
sister, and my brother Frank, and found that several things which were
either not remembered before or were denied are true after all. This fact
came out in each case in an interesting way and without suggestion from me.
1 assumed that the case was closed against the incidents, but the spontaneous
remarks of one or the other of the persons to whom I was reading the account
furnished information that I had neither expected nor asked for. In one or
two cases I asked a question, having forgotten what had been told me, and
got an answer which showed that the record was true. Of course my
questions by correspondence did not show the context and connection, and it
was natural that the incident whose confirmation or denial I sought should
be misunderstood. But when the whole narrative was seen the case became
quite different. Hence some of the statements now contradict those formerly
made. On cross-questioning my relatives and reminding them of their
former statements to the contrary, they still adhered to the last statements
and remarked that they had misunderstood the questions put to them before.
Moreover the incidents recalled were so minutely described that I could not
refuse the preference to the later narrative and confirmation. I had, of
course, to be very cautious about this as such a change of conviction is liable
to suspicion, but as the confirmation was against the natural prejudices and
disposition of my mother and sister I had only the danger of suggestion on

614.) — J. H. H.

New York, July 10th, 1899.

410

J. H. Hyslop, PhJ).

[part

my own part to overcome, and in most cases at least this danger was avoided
by an indirect question and in some cases by receiving spontaneous state-
ments that were not answers to my inquiries, but unexpected verifications of
the record, or confirmation of facts not clearly put in the record.

The first of these incidents was the one that was mentioned in the sitting
of February 8th to Dr. Hodgson, and this was immediately followed by
another of very considerable interest. I had asked my stepmother whether
father had any trouble with one of his eyes and received a negative reply,
but when I read the passage referring to the trouble in the left eye and
remarked that she had denied it before she said : " Well, I do not remember
this, but it was true that he had some trouble with it. He used often to
take off his spectacles and complain that there was something the matter with
the left eye. He would rub it and complain that he could not see with it.
But he never doctored for it." The fact is a priori probable, as I had noticed
the last few years of his life that the disease with which he suffered was
gradually making inroads upon various parts of his system.

When I read the passage about the " peculiar mark which you will recall,
etc." my stepmother made the same reply that she gave to my letter some
months before, but went on to say spontaneously and without suggestion or
further question from me, that father did have a mole on the left temple
near the ear and in front of it. I do not myself recall this, or that I ever
knew it. My father wore a beard, and this mark, which was a very slight
one, was not likely to be easily noticed, especially as I had seen him very
little since 1879. The corroboration would be complete in this instance if it
had not been for the mistake of referring the mark to a place behind the ear.
But it is remarkably interesting to see two incidents, one strictly correct and
the other nearly so, in the same breath, as it were, and with the associative
unity that would be natural to one trying to prove his identity. — J. H. H.

Short Beach, Conn., July 26th, 1899.
Note 28. — I have ascertained an interesting fact that shows the allusion
tti hu'vphme more nearly correct than my first note implies. On reading
father's letters uver I find in that for April 27th, 1896, that father states to
me that he w.ls taking strychnine and arsenic at the same time that he was
taking Hvmuei. Now this arsenic is not morphine, but it is a poison that
was very closely associated in father's mind when living with the common
cks* of poisons, and it might be a natural mistake to make here in mention-
ing it instead Of arsenic. Of course, the evidential feature of the case is lost
in any event, but as a mistake it is more easily accounted for by the fact that
| have mentioned than it would be on the supposition that it was more false
than it is. That is to say, it is more like a mistake of memory than a mistake
cation.— J. H. H.

_The second incident which unexpectedly turned out to have
«Ue interest and importance related to the name Cooper. I had
£ to the name because I thought that, if Dr. Hodgson would get
g« that I wanted (see sitting of June 1st) the incident would try
d-i very severely. But, as my notes show, I was not only ignorant of

Digitized byGoOglC

XLI.]

Appendix II.

411

any relevance in the statements made by the communicator, but I did not
even remark that the communicator actually distinguished between the
Cooper that I had in mind and another whose name I either never knew or
had wholly forgotten. I merely read the passage to my stepmother and
remarked the absurdity of its pertinence to this Samuel Cooper, with which
she agreed, but, all unconscious of the light she was throwing on the record,
she said that father was a warm friend of Dr. Joseph Cooper, of Alleghany,
that he often spoke of him and that he probably had some correspondence
with him at one time. She distinctly recalls the last occasion on which my
father referred to him. It was one of the meetings of the United Presby-
terian Assemblies, which father would attend when it met in his home city.
He pointed him out to her, but as they had grown widely apart in their
religious views, which were always different, he did not speak to him at this
time. Unfortunately all my father's correspondence was destroyed about two
years ago, except such as pertained to his business affairs, and it is impossible
to corroborate the statement that he had corresponded with this Cooper on
religious matters. My two aunts do not remember either father's friendship
or his correspondence with the man. This is not surprising, because what-
ever relations my father may have had with this Dr. Cooper occurred about
the time of the Union of 1868 when the United Presbyterian Church was
formed, and it was at that time my two aunts separated from father on
religious matters. This Dr. Cooper, I am told by one who knew him well and
who is a theologian of some rank in that church, was very conservative,
though more liberal than father. This would attract him to father on ques-
tions connected with the union of the two churches, and 1 can conjecture
that the fact would give rise to father's desire to know how so conservative a
mind could go into the Union at that time. Father had intelligence enough
to worry any theologian very much if he was not strictly logical or sincere,
as many a one could testify. I have no doubt that if I could recover this
alleged correspondence, I would find that it related to questions connected
with that Union which father could not accept and whose acceptance he
could not understand in men professing the beliefs of Dr. Cooper. This Dr.
Cooper remained conservative in everything but the question of instrumental
music, and astonished and offended his old friends a short time before he died
by accepting the new tendency toward its introduction into church worship.
In the absence of testimony and correspondence, therefore, these facts may
indicate the possibility of correctness in the statements of the communicator,
especially when we discover, in a later sitting (p. 420) the pertinent refer-
ence to a school which had been built as a memorial to this Dr. Cooper.

The allusion to 44 tokens" on February 22nd (p. 397) in connection with
the name Cooper has considerable interest. My father belonged to a small
denomination, the Associate Presbyterian, which practised what is called
44 close communion " and hence used these tokens, little oblong metal pieces
of a coin-like character, to indicate the person's right to participate in the
dispensation of the bread and wine in the communion service. The
improbability that they should be mentioned by chance is clear from the
following facts : —

The denomination consists of about ten or twelve ministers and perhfl"
not more than a thousand communicants. There are perhaps fifteen

412

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

more separate congregations. There is not one of these east of the
Alleghany mountains. They are all in the Mississipi valley. One of the
best informed ministers in it wrote me that this denomination, the Associate
Presbyterian Church, was the only one in this country that used these
tokens in communion services, others that were conservative using only
certificates or cards. 44 Open communion " is the general practice and hence
certificates even are limited to one or two denominations.

The tokens are placed in the hands of an elder or member of the
" Session " for safe-keeping in the interval between communion services,
and there are not more than fifteen or twenty persons in the United States
of whom it can be said that they have had these tokens. My father was an
elder in this church and was always entrusted with the keeping of them.
When the little congregation to which he belonged in Xenia, Ohio, of
perhaps not more than twenty or twenty-five members, was disintegrated by
the death or emigration of its members, father kept these tokens in a little
chamois skin bag, and I obtained them as mementos after his death.

The most interesting part of the reference to them, however, consists in
their connection with the name Cooper. The use of tokens was never
considered as essential to religious belief or practice. But those who still
clung to their use did so on the specific ground that the abandonment of
them would relax allegiance to the more important features of religious
ceremony. A good many questions of this sort were warmly discussed in
the settlement of the terms of union between the Associate Presbyterian and
the Associate Reformed Churches to form the United Presbyterian Church
in 1858, which my father declined to enter, owing to his conservative beliefs.
If father ever had any correspondence with this Dr. Joseph Cooper, it was at
this time and most probably concerned such questions as are implied in the
use of tokens. Father and Dr. Cooper differed on these matters, as* is
indicated by the different directions which they took in their action at the
time. It is therefore very pertinent here to see the mention of these tokens
in connection with a name that was very prominently associated with the
controversies that were terminated by the formation of the United Presby-
terian Church. — J. H. H.

Note 30. — Since ascertaining the relevance of the statements with refer-
ence to this Cooper, from the standpoint of the communicator, I may alter
the judgment previously expressed of some of the statements (p. 386).
The reference to the " accident" as soon as the name was given him is
pertinent enough, though it is not remembered by the only person who can
testify on the matter, my stepmother, whether any accident interrupted
their journey on the occasion when they visited the West together. But it
must be recalled that an accident had been mentioned in connection with
some trip out West, so that any name that would suggest the West to the
mind of the communicator might very well recall the incident of the
accident, whether it ever took place or not.

It will be apparent also that the allusion to "the old friend of mine in
the West " takes on a new possibility in the light of the general relevance of
Jhe message. It cannot be said that this Dr. Cooper lived in the West from

standpoint of my father in his lifetime, because it was east of him that

XLI.]

Appendix II.

413

Dr. Cooper lived. It could be true as stated only from the standpoint of the
place of the communications, and this is hardly allowable except by straining
the interpretation. But if the communication is incomplete, the statement
might be connected with an attempt to speak of the Cooper School, an
attempt, however, which did not succeed until a later sitting (p. 420). This
was "in the West," but whether an imperfect message or not, the association
of the name West with Cooper, in the light of the facts explained, is natural
enough, even if confused and dreamy, so that I can recall the remark that it
might be a mediumistic trick. — J. H. H.

Note 31. — The next incident pertains to the hymn, " Nearer, my God, to
Thee," on which I commented as opposed to the supposition that I was deal-
ing with my father. I was explaining the absurdity of the incident and
pointing out that it, with some others, was flatly against the spiritistic
theory, as I read the record to my stepmother, when she emphatically
agreed, and spontaneously remarked to confirm my judgment, all uncon-
scious that she was overthrowing it, that this hymn was especially disliked
by father and that he very often expressed this dislike, remarking that he
could not understand how orthodox people could use a Unitarian hymn. I
was absolutely ignorant of this fact, and though I knew we had sung Moody
and Sankey hymns for secular diversion to which father was not opposed,
thinking, in spite of his objections to hymns, that they were better for
secular enjoyment than the usually vulgar songs of the neighbourhood, yet
I do not recall singing this specific hymn and certainly have not the slightest
recollection of his prejudice against it. My stepmother's statement is abso-
lutely news to me. But it gives decided pertinence to the incident and
overthrows my objection to it, and gives unity to the ideas connected with
the mention of Wesleyan Methodists a few moments before. Of course
mediumistic associations could account for this association, but it would
hardly account for the extraordinary pertinence of the allusion to this par-
ticular hymn. — J. H. H.

Note 32. — Having observed some traces in the record of statements
which were probably mere thoughts or intentions in the life of the com-
municator, and having ascertained from my stepmother that father had
never used any of Munyon's Catarrh Remedies, it occurred to me to ask her
on this visit whether father had ever talked about Munyon's catarrh
medicine, and the answer was that he had often mentioned his intention
to get it, having seen it advertised in one of the Philadephia papers. But
he never bought it nor used it. It will be apparent, then, that there is at
least a half pertinence in the incident, at least sufficient to prevent it from
having a direct negative value.

To verify this statement that possibly father had seen an advertisement of
Munyon's Catarrh Remedy in the Philadelphia paper which I knew he took
I examined the columns of this paper for the years 1895 and 1896, the
period covering the serious nature of his illness, but I did not find a single
advertisement of this medicine. I found, however, three advertisements of
well-known catarrh remedies, Aerated Medication, Johnston's Liniment, and

414

J. H. Hy*U>p, Ph.D.

[part

Hyomei. These were advertised in a very conspicuous manner, and it is
more than probable that they were seen and talked over between my father
and stepmother. In fact it is possible that the impulse to try the Hyomei
may have been awakened by the advertisements in this paper, and it is also
possible that my mother's memory errs only in regard to the particular
advertisement about which they talked, since my brother is very positive
that father did see an advertisement of Munyon's Catarrh Remedy in a
circular, and not in this paper. Munyon's Catarrh Remedy has been widely
advertised in various ways. If my brother's memory can be trusted, and my
stepmother thinks him correct about it, the conjecture regarding the possi-
bility that we have an automatism here somewhat like the expression, " Give
me my hat and let me go," has its conceivability. — J. H. H.

New York, November 8t/i, 1899.
Note 33. — In order to ascertain all the probabilities in this matter and.
test the accuracy of my brother's memory as against the proved mistake of
my stepmother, I wrote to the Munyon Company asking whether they had
ever distributed circular advertisements of their Catarrh Remedy over the
West, and in particular the State of Indiana. I was careful to explain that
I had no wish to pry into private business matters, but only to test the
memory of a person who said that they had done so. The reply is as
follows : —

Philadelphia, November 4th, 1899.

Prof. J. H. Hyslop, Columbia University, N.Y. City.

Dear Sir,— We are in receipt of your favour, and beg to reply that we do
not care to answer your questions, as we never furnish information in regard
to our business methods outside our office. We regret that we are unable to
afford you this courtesy, and remain, very sincerely yours,
Diet, by H. H. C. Munyon's H. H. R. Co.

The only facts of weight in the case are that my stepmother remembers
distinctly miough that father had talked of getting this medicine, and that
my in-ill In i confirms this fact, while the memories of the two are at variance
about thy source of the suggestion to father, with a preference for my
In rln'i s memory in my judgment, especially as the advertisements in the
prtpvi mentioned by my stepmother pertained to his disease and could easily
be oonfttftwl in her memory with the one she here alludes to. The case is
least sufficiently indeterminate to prevent the use of it for the
theory . \l fabrication.-— J. H. H.

AWe : ■ i . -I found also in the sitting of February 20th that the allusion to
a round and a square bottle was less false than my original note indicates.
My stepmother still insisted that he kept no such bottle as a square one on
his deak , My sister did not remember anything of the kind, but my brother
Frank, win* was at home at that time, says emphatically and without positive
contrail i t-t ion by either of the other two that father kept beside his round
hot tic nlso a square mucilage bottle on his writing desk. But none of

nk bottle id

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix II.

415

them remember whether he put his spectacle case on this desk beside the
bottles. They do emphatically say that he did not keep the tin spectacle
case there, and that it was not his custom to use the other leather case very
frequently. He may have put it on this desk at times. — J. H. H.

[Further inquiries while reading the proofs also show that my father had,
and quite constantly used, a writing pad, my first inquiry having been mis-
understood from the way I put it. Also, there were a number of little
44 rests," not exactly pigeon holes but shelves, so to speak, in the desk, and
on one of these the writing pad was kept when not in use. There also were
placed the various odds and ends, among them the usual implements and
material of a desk (<•/. p. 379). No one seems to remember whether father
ever placed the paper cutter or knife on these "rests," but only that he
carried it in his vest pocket. But as it was given him solely for opening
letters, and as he indisputably left everything else, hardly excepting the
leather spectacle case, on these "rests," it is possible that he often left the
paper knife there with his letters and pen. (June 11th, 1900.) J. H. H.]

Note 36. — The incident about the cane or 44 stick" mentioned in the
sitting of February 22nd, especially when compared with that in the sitting
of June 8th, appears to have considerable interest. Without asking any
questions at all about it, I happened to see standing in the corner of the
room an old walking stick which had been broken and then mended with a
tin 4 4 ring" about it. I asked if this had been father's cane, and received
an affirmative reply. I asked how it had been broken, and was told by my
brother Frank that the break was caused by prying with it. The tin sheath
about the stick was about four inches long. The cane was a curved handled
one that had been given father by his brother-in-law, who had lost the
straight ebony cane with the initials on it that had been given him by us
children. But unless we allow for confusion in the effort to indicate what
walking stick was meant in this case and for omissions in the communication,
there is some discrepancy between this incident and the statement made on
June 8th. If we can suppose father to have made the attempt to distinguish
between the ebony cane and the curved one I gave him, on the one hand, and
between the two curved canes on the other, the incidents obtain a most
extraordinary interest and importance. This broken cane I had, no doubt,
known at one time before it was broken, and also I must have known that it
was broken, because my aunt gave me the money to buy the one I gave him,
telling me that the one he was using was broken. But I had not seen it in
this broken condition, and had absolutely forgotten what I had been told
about it.

A little reconstruction will show how nearly right the sentence is in which
the statement is made about carving his initials on the curved cane. This
cane was given him by his brother-in-law for the straight one with his initials
on it given to him by us children and lost by this brother-in-law. If then
the sentence had read : 44 Do you remember the stick I used to carry with
the turn in the end, which was given me for the one on which my initials
were carved in the end ? " it would have expressed the exact truth very clearly,
as my story shows, and there would have been no confusion about it.— -J.H.H.

416

J. H. Hydup, PhJ).

[part

Note 36. — I was for a long time very much puzzled by the description
of various movements attributed to my father in connection with the cane.
From one expression I supposed that there might be a reference to the act
of breaking it. But as this would not apply to all the incidents I had to
abandon the supposition. I therefore instituted more careful inquiries into
father's habits in the use of the cane and ascertain that the various state-
ments may have immediate applicability to incidents well calculated to
establish identity. The "thumping down," indicated by Rector's manner,
may apply to father's actual use of this cane to call my stepmother by
pounding it on the floor. He could not speak above a whisper, and if she
were in the kitchen he could not make her hear in any other way, and as he
could scarcely walk, owing to locomotor ataxy, it was the easiest way to
attract her attention. There is, perhaps, some possibility that the allusion
to a movement, described by Dr. Hodgson as like the motion of the hand
in wiping out a basin, may refer to a playful trick of my father when he
was in the mood for it. He would hook the handle of the cane about my
stepmother's arm or neck and watch her try to extricate herself. The cane
would naturally drop on the floor when she succeeded. His cane was con-
stantly in his hands and he used to roll or draw it across his knees. He was
also in the habit of keeping time with it to music, and when in meditation
on some subject. There is thus much in his habits to suggest some pertinence
in these apparent allusions to them. They were habits entirely unknown to

me.— J.H.H.

XLI.]

Appendix HI.

417

APPENDIX III.

This Appendix contains the records of my eight sittings on
May 29th, 30th, 31st, June 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th, 1899, together
with contemporary notes. The sittings were arranged for as indicated
in the following : —

[Rector writing. Sitter, R. H.]

May l&th, 1899.

* * * (Then Hyslop is coming to this vicinity in the body, and he is
very anxious to have as many times as possible. He can be present con-
veniently the four after the second Sabbath, and there are earthly reasons
which would make those times desirable for him if possible, and . . .)
[Hand turns to talk with Sp.] (Shall . . .) [Cross in air.] (And he
would like to resume with you again on the week after that, so that he might
have perhaps as many as ten times altogether. Then . . .) [Hand again
talks with Sp.]

(Further, there is one lady whom you mentioned . . . ) [Hand
points to previous sheets to indicate their reference to this.] (and laid aside

. . . ) [Hand assents.] (and she, Mrs. , informs me that she expects

to be here next week. I suppose that she could be present on the fifth or
sixth after Sabbath if necessary as she goes away again after.) [Hand assents
strongly.]

He will arrange to meet Hyslop on the first four after second Sabbath.
No other must interfere between our meetings with him. (Good.)

He will arrange for him on the first four after third also + . (Good.)

He hath especially given mention to ... of [attempt to write of
above to.] his desire to meet him through me to Mrs. D. Hast thou not yet
received this desire ? (Yes, Mrs. D., or rather perhaps G., mentioned that
at his mother's sitting you stated your expectation of meeting him shortly.)
+ Well. We now arrange this for him as previously stated. * * *

Explanation of Notes.

The Notes marked Introduction and placed just before the detailed
record of each sitting and representing also a record of facts previous
to the trance and the beginning of the writing, were written, as
indicated by the dates, immediately on my return from the sittings,
and usually from notes taken at the time. — J. H. H.

June 7th, 1899.

2 E

Digitized by Google

J. H. Hyalop, PLD.

[paw

Introduction.

I noticed the usual physical indications of the on-coming trance
which it is not necessary to detail here, further than to say that the
change in the expression of the face compared with the normal condi-
tion seemed very marked. There was what might be called a very
slightly bloated appearance to the face, the face looking less muscular,
as if having less tonicity, though not in any way swollen. The lips
and mouth were slightly drawn as the trance approached. The cough
which at first seemed to trouble Mrs. P. lost its tendency to manifest
itself, as if the trance condition relieved her throat of irritation, and it
wholly disappeared when the trance was completed. There were
several occasions in the on-coming trance when the eyes assumed a
fixed and upward gaze until the lids began to droop. There was a
slight twitching in the muscles of the cheek and hand, in the latter, as
usual, before the writing began. — J. H. H.

These and the incorporated notes were made during the evening
after the sitting, so that they are contemporaneous. — J. H. H.

May 29*A, 1899.

Record of Sitting May 29^, 1899.

Prof. J. H. H. and It. H.

[Rector writes.]

HAIL. (R. H. : Hail, Imperator.) Peace to thee, and all will be as
we would have it. Blessings on thee. +. We meet thee this day with
peace and joy. All hail. Welcome, friend. Good news to thee we bring
and . . . quiet with one and all. [Hand bows as in prayer.]

I am here and glad I am to see your face once more. If I fail in mj
memory think not for me, but let me think my thoughts, and they will come
to me in time, past memories one and all.

Friend, we will have a word with thee after he hath gone.

[While R. H. is writing, the hand listens to S., who touches R. H. to
draw his attention to it.] (R. H. to S. : Say something.)

(Good morning, father, is this you ?) [Excitement in hand.]

Yes. I. Yes, James, it is I your father. Was it malt [malt not deciphered
immediately] you wished me to think about . . . how are you once
more and is all well with . . .

[R. H. asks about word after " was it."]

Was it malt you . . . M a 1 1 1 N E you . . .

[This allusion to Maltine here is very singular, whether any explanation
or significance be given it or not. The allusion to it seems to imply that it
was one of the medicines which I had asked for at an earlier sitting. But
while it is a medicine with which I am familiar, and which I have often used
myself, it was not what I asked for, nor was it among the medicines which
my father used for his disease. But the singular fact is that I had sent the
spectacle case and contents to Dr. Hodgson in an old Maltine box, and this

Digitized by

Appendix III.

419

tx>x was on the floor out of which the spectacle case was taken a moment
afterward.— J. H. H.] [See Note 37, p. 497.]

I am still with you and I have much to say. Go on. I am more free
now . . free now. Give me something.

[R. H. opens parcel and puts spectacle case on table and opens it so as to
sxpose contents.]

I long to reach you clearer, nearer. Did you hear me speaking to you ?
[Yes, I hear you speaking.) Do not go more to that place. I am not there.
I am not there and you cannot find me if you go.

(To R. H. : Shall I ask what place that is i) (R. H. to S. : Yes.)

(What place is that, father ?) With the younger men trying to find me.
They are not light and I cannot reach you there.

What was it Nani [?] said about the paper . . [See Note 38, p. 499.]

I am sorry if I mistake any thing but they tell me if I am patient I will
remember all.

(R. H. : Mr. Hyslop, your son James was trying experiments with some
other persons, but he did not expect to find you, so you need not bother
about that.)

Thank you, I U D, and I am glad indeed. James, if you will wait you
shall know all. Believe me I will in time recover fully.

[I saw in this allusion to my going to a certain place evident indications,
or at least a coincidence capable of interpretation of such indications, that I
was with some " younger men " in connection with this subject. I recalled
at once an occasion in New York some weeks ago when I addressed the
young men of the Graduate Club on psychical research and recounted in full
the facts of my former sittings. I felt the occasion very strongly and the
men showed much interest in the account. But it did not occur to me that
the allusion might be to a system of experiments which I Instituted immedi-
ately after my sittings and on my return to New York to imitate the Piper
phenomenon. I had frequently to explain them, their purpose, meaning,
etc., to the young men with whom I conducted them. I also frequently
mentioned my experiments with Mrs. Piper to these men, and so quite con-
stantly had my father on my mind. It is strictly true that the 44 young
men " are not "light," that is, mediumistic, though it is interesting to see
the real or apparent supposition that I was in some way endeavouring to get
into communication with my father, and the correct statement that I could
not expect to do it in this way, if the Piper experiments are a test of its
possibility. — J. H. H.]

Why do you not hear me ? (R. H. to S. : Say something.) (I hear you
all right.)

Well, what I want you to know most at the moment is that I am speaking
to some other man who is speaking for me and I will soon be here myself.
V D.

Mother, Annie and all the rest. [Name Annie correct. — J. H, H.]
Speak to me now. (Well, father, I shall be glad to hear from all of you.
Give your names if you can.) And yourself, how are you ? I feel that you
are much better and less worried. (Yes, father, I am much better and leas
worried.)

I will speak again presently, have patience with me.

Digitized byQt&Qle

420

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

There is time for all things, and God is merciful to all.
[Characteristic. — J. H. H.]

He will return in a moment . . merciful to all.

We would like to have our earthly friend U D us if possible, and when
so we can be of great service to him in more ways than one. R. (R. H. :

Yes, I am here, and I am thinking over the things I said when I was con-
fused. Do you remember of my telling you I thought it possible that we
might live elsewhere ?

(Yes, father. I remember it well.)

But to speak was doubtful, very . . Ah yes [!]

we do speak, although vaguely at times. (R. H. : After very ?)

Ah, but we ... ah . . ("vaguely at times") . . at best
. . we do . . .

[The allusion in this passage seems to be the same as in former sittings,
both to our conversation on this subject and my doubts. — J. H. H.]

What is on my mind at present is the conditions which help me to return,
U D. I have found a just and all- wise Protector who will not overlook me.
I am coming nearer and nearer.

Yes . . yes . . [in reply to questions by R. H. if word above was
protector.']

Do you remember when . . Do you remember when you asked me
what I said to you on your departure for school ? (Yes, I remember that
well. Do you know what school I went to ?) I remember asking you to
improve the opportunity. I am thinking about it now and I will speak it
very soon. Do you remember my last words to you ? [Same thought as in
last sitting Dr. Hodgson had for me (Of. pp. 401-405).— J. H. H.] (Yes.)

I shall look forvfard to seeing you again soon when I hope to be better
able to speak.

[Hand talks with Sp.]

Friend, wilt thou move for a while and return presently ? . . for
(R. H. : Do you mean me, Rector ?)

Yes, thou, as we have some work to do for Mr. Hyslop here, and thj
father also is coming. Kindly go. Go not for long.
[R. H. goes out.]
nor far away.
Art thou here, friend ?

I want to see you clearly, James, if possible.

(Yes, free your mind, tell what you are thinking about.)

I am here again. I am trying to think of the Cooper School and his
interest there. [See Note 39, p. 499.]

Do you remember how my throat troubled me ? . . throat. [Another
allusion to his fatal illness. — J. H. H.] (Yes.) I am not troubled about it,
only thinking. (I am glad to hear that.)

I remember my old friend Cooper very well and his interest . . inte-
rests (Yes) and he is with me now.

(Yes, I am glad to hear it. Tell about him.)

He is with me now. He maintained the same ideas thorought. (What ia
the last word?) throughout [throuought] (Yes, I understand.)

Yes.)

XLl]

Appendix III.

421

And perhaps you will recall a journey . . journey U D we took together.
Do you hear me. [We did take a journey together, but this allusion is too
indefinite for any special pertinence. If the "we" refers to Cooper and
himself it is not true. — J. H. H.] (Yes, I hear.) And do you remember
John ? (John. Yes, I remember him.) He has just come to greet you for
a moment. [See Note 39, p. 499 and p. 480.]

And do you remember anything about Lucy . . . Lucy . . Lucy
. . I say Lucy. [Lncy not deciphered.] She was Nannie's [?] cousin.
[Cousin not deciphered.] You may not hear me.

[I can make nothing of this passage referring to Lacy and calling her
Nannie's cousin. I know no one of that name that could be called my aunt
Nannie's cousin, nor a cousin of my stepmother w4io evidently passed in
some of the sittings under the name Nannie, though this is not correct.
Neither can I make anything out of the allusion just afterward to my brother
and the visit to him. Apparently there was some wandering and confusion
in both cases, as communications from father were superseded by those from
my sister who avows it her mission to help father to remember and to
become clear.— J. H. H.] [See Note 40, p. 501.]

(Yes, I hear.) And yet I am thinking of F * * [rest of word undec]
and ray visit to him. I mean your brother . . Brother . . Hear it ?
(Yes, I hear it.)

Where is he now . . is your . . I . . my son. I do . . . [This is
too vague for any use. Father never visited my brother Frank. But then
this may not be meant. Nov. 3rd, 1899.— J. H. H.] [See Note 40, p. 501.]

Annie ... I want to help father to remember everything because I
came here first and long ago. [This relation of time is correct in both
instances. — J. H. H.] Do you hear me, James ? Do you remember the large
sled . . the large Sledl (I am not sure ) S 1 e d Sled (Yes, I understand.)

Do you know the one I mean ? I remember you and the Allen [? inter-
preted by S. as older] boys had it when I was in the body. Do you remember
it ? [Cf. p. 422.] (No, I do not remember.)

[I have no recollection of this sled incident, but it is extremely probable.
My sister died in the winter. 4 4 Allen" is probably Rector's mistake for
McClellan.— J. H. H.]

Here is father and he is alone

[R. H. returns.]

again now and I will go for a moment. [See Note 41, p. 502.]
Now, James, here 1 am, I am thinking about the church and the
little . . . [Cf. p. 435.]

[I should have been glad to have seen this developed. — J. H. H.]
(R. H. : Shall I stay ?)

Yes. All right now. Remain, friend, and all will be well.

Speak to me occasionally, James, that I may hear you.

(Yes, father, tell about the little church, tell about the church.)

It . . reach you . . Be just always. [These words probably part
of conversation between Rector and communicator.]

And perhaps you will recall an old friend of mine who was a doctor and
who was a little peculiar in regard to the subject of religion, and with whom
I had many long talks. (Who . . . ) A man small of stature and . .

422

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

and more or less of mind. It has gone from me, i.e., his name, but it will
come back to me.

[It appeared hardly safe to identify this reference to a doctor friend too
definitely. When I saw the word " doctor" written I thought of father's
old family physician who died long ago. But the reference to his peculiar
views about religion turned me off upon another physician who had the
reputation of being an arch sceptic. But then again as soon as the mention
was made of the long talks, the passage taking time enough for the writing to
enable my thoughts to change, I saw clearly that this was not the man
meant, as I knew* my father never talked to this physician on religion,
while his old family physician was of the same religious conviction as my
father. The long talks and peculiar views of religion, however, at once
suggested the name of another physician (Dr. Harvey McClellan, whose
name was apparently attempted towards the end of the sitting) with whom
I know my father did talk on this subject, and I remember that my rather
aud aunt used to condemn his more liberal views very heartily. — J. H. H.]

[Further study of this incident leads me to think that possibly my father
had his dentist in mind here, and this in spite of my thought at the time
and the immediate attempt to give the name McClellan which was plainly
indicated to refer to my cousin. The reference to the church and the talks
on religion, especially when characterising them as peculiar, confirm or
suggest this interpretation more strongly than the first one. This dentist
was a Unitarian. My father admitted his intelligence, but could not agree
with him on religion, and had many talks with him. (Of. Note 74, p. 523)
(April 24th, 1901.)-J. H. H.]

Do you remember McCollum [?] (S. : McAllum >) (R. H. : McCollum t)
(S. to R. H. : No. I know what it is.)

(Spell it again.) McAllum. (How was he related to you?) He was
McAllan [?] (Yes, that's it.) Don't you U D who I mean ? He came
over some time ago. [Correct, if it refers to my cousin. — J. H. H.] (Yes,
I remember. Tell.)

What about your uncle ? (Which uncle do you mean ?) I mean . . .
let me hear once more . . I mean Charles.

(S. to R. H. : That's not quite right. Shall I make him spell it outf)
(R. H. to S. : Yes.)

You must remember him. (Yes. I remember him, but please spell out
the name in full.) In full. (The name Charles is not right.) In full did
you say i (Yes.)

C 1 a R 1 . . [hand signifies dissent.] speak it more loudly.

C 1 or 0 R . . C. [pause.] (That's Clark) ClaRAkE Clark
(that's right) e. (Not quite.) son [?] . . there are some niore which I
will ... I say. He is here himself speaking it for me.

C 1 a r ke. CI arance.

Speak it louder, friend. Well he is Uncle Clauc [?] Clara ke.
I will wait for it.

It sounds very like it. Clarke. Charles [?]

[This allusion to my *fc uncle Charles " and the long effort to get it right is
one of the most interesting incidents of the sitting. It will be remembered
/hat in one of my earlier sittings, that of December 24th last, he was called

XLI.]

Appendix III.

423

44 uncle Charles," and on my demand for more explicit information, he was
said 4 4 not to be a real uncle." I here asked for the name to be given
correctly and in full. 44 Clarke" is not correct, nor will any but psychic
researchers familiar with the phenomena we are here dealing with recognise
any similarity between this and the real name which I hope still to get in the
future. There is some suggestion of it in 44 Clarke." But the most interest-
ing part of the incident is the consciousness of Rector that he is not getting
it right, and his very earnest effort to get it. — J. H. H.] 1

Well, never mind. Don't try. Wait a moment and do not hurry
. . yes and McAllan. Well, you must know him. I had a cousin by
that name. Don't you remember it : [Cousin first interpreted as brain.]

COUSIN. Cousin. [He was my cousin, not father's. — J. H. H.]

(Yes, I remember my cousin. What was his first name ? Tell him to
give his first name.)

He will, but do not worry about it.

Yes. I haven't seen so many here around the light in a long time. R.

Where is George ? I often think of him but I do not worry any more
about him. [Name correct and suggestion pertinent. — J. H. H.] (George is
at home and all right. Do you remember where that is ?) Oh yes, I often
go out there to see him. (Do you . . do you ever see him ?) Oh yes, I
think, if I U D your question, I do.

Yes, and do you remember Thorn . . . Tom . . and what has he
done with him ? I feel quite . . . yes . . . yes, all right . . .
I mean the horse. (8. : That's it. My conscience !)

[This reference to 44 Tom, the horse," is profoundly interesting. As soon
as I saw Tom written I thought of an old negro whom father often employed
in the harvest field and with whom he used to have much fun. But I was
completely surprised when the statement came, 44 1 mean the horse,"
possibly as information to Rector, who perhaps was puzzled at first to know
what the passage meant. The question should have ended with 44 what he
did with him." 4 4 Tom" was the off horse of a favourite pair of father's,
who had served him so well that he would never part with them but resolved
to keep them until they died. 44 Tom " was excitable, though not dangerous,
worked too hard and was wind broken. Just how and when he died I do not
know, as his death occurred after I had left home and neighbourhood for
teaching, but I merely recall that a letter from some one of the family told
me of the time and manner of his death. My impression is that my brother

1 The failure to get the name Carruthers correctly, at least eventually, was pro-
bably as much my fault as any one's, perhaps mine alone. When Rector gave the
name 44 Clark " instead of 44 Clarake " I said, 44 That's right," meaning that 44 Clark "
was the correct form for the apparent attempt in Clarake, and not that I recognised
the name as the correct one for my uncle. But my statement was calculated, unin-
tentionally, to make Rector believe that he had caught the name, and that it was
right. It is interesting, therefore to note that in most instances during the later
sittings the name of this uncle appears as 44 Clarke," and only occasionally as
4k Charles," which had been used for the name of this uncle until I called for the
correct form here. Had I not used the expression 44 That's right " I might have
gotten the name correctly, but the mischief was done, and I did not wish to preci-
pitate such a time as occurred later when I asked for the correct name of my step-
mother. January 16th, 1900. —J. H. U.

Digitized by Google

424

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

George was connected with the disposal of the horse after his death. [See
Note 42, p. 502.] — J. H. H.]

I am thinking about it now, and everything I ever knew I believe,
because my mind travels so fast and I try to get away from the rest as much
as possible. [Interesting suggestion as to place of Attention and Inhibition
in this phenomenon. — J. H. H.]

Arthur after I go out I shall feel better.

[Arthur was probably Rector's misinterpretation of After. — R. H.]

I feel better than I did a while ago. I wonder what Annie meant about
the Sled . . Sled. She has it on her mind.

James, are you waiting for me ? I used to read the paper in my chair,
but strange they none of them remember it. [Not all deciphered immedi-
ately.] [See Note 43, p. 502.]

Did you write to Nannie about it, James ? . . . papers . . .
[R. H. had misinterpreted paper and strange and none, in sentence above, and
re-reads it with some other interpretation of strange and nmie.]

No, no, do not speak so, friend . . . strange they do (" none of them
remember it ") write [right i]

You must know what I am thinking about.

[I remember that father had a tall rocking chair in my younger days in
which he always sat, and in which he was accustomed, daytime or evening,
to read the papers. I imagine that he had the same habit in the latter part
of his life.— J. H. H.]

And the little tool I used for my feet ("and the little tool"). He says
no. Stool. (S. : Is that word Stool ?) Yes. I had for my feet. Cannot
you remember ? (When was this ?) Just before I came here.

(I do not remember it, but I think some one else will.)

[As I read this over, I think that this reference to a stool is pertinent,
and that father used one during his last illness. Nannie is not the correct
name here, though, if we interpret it as a mistake of Rector for the right
name (Maggie, my stepmother), the intended reference would be pertinent.
(Cf. p. 69, and Note 25, p. 365.) If she confirms this statement about the
stool, it will support my interpretation of the name in this and in some
earlier sittings. — J. H. H.] [See Note 44, p. 502.]

Strange I think, but when I go out I will think it all over and see what I
have told you.

Do you feel about the bible as you did ? There are many errors in it. I
have found that out and ....

[This is a great change of mind for father, and would be against personal
identity, and could be made consistent with it only on the supposition of the
spirit hypothesis involving a view of things quite different from the ordinary
orthodoxy. — J. H. H.] [Of. hymn incident, p. 389.]

give me . . [articles placed under hand.]

James, where is that paper knife . . do you know ?

(I have not found it, but I think mother knows about it.) [See earlier
sittings, pp. 378, 379 and Note 14, p. 359.— J. H. H.]

Well, that will be all right, but what I am anxious about is for you to
know I am not forgetting anything, only I am a little confused when I try to
tell you what I so long to do.

XLL]

Appendix III.

425

I think of twenty tilings all at once. I am now thinking of those
pictures ; where are they /

Do you remember a small cap I used to wear occasionally, and I left it I
think with Francis (R. H. : Francis) [Hand dissents] Fred — F Re I
mean Fredrick [?] (' 4 Fredrick " ?) [S. shakes his head negatively.] no,
not that, but with F . . but F. (C/. p. 387.)

[This allusion to the cap again is interesting, especially in connection with
the name Francis, and the attempt to correct or change it into another form.
My brother's name, the youngest, is Francis, but we invariably called him
Frank.— J. H. H.]

Do you know the one I mean / I cannot think any more. Wait for me
to return. I will be better bye and bye. Yes, his name was Henry
McAllam [?] and he is . . .

[Here we have very nearly the name of the physician with peculiar
religious views mentioned earlier in this sitting. His name was Harvey
McCleUan. This confirmed my earlier conjecture very clearly. — J. H. H.]
[See p. 422, and Note 74, p. 523.]

gone. [Pause.]

Our prayers have been with thee often, friend, and for thy health, and
we are thy friends, and when thou art cast down call upon us for help, and
help thou shalt receive.

We went to the boy immediately. We wen . .

We received thy message, and we went to the boy at once. -I- . . went.
(R. H. : I understand. Thank you.)

[At the sitting of May 26th, Miss E. gave a request sent by R. II. from
Mrs. C, asking Imperator to help a little boy who was ill.]

Ah, James, do not, my son, think I am degenerating because I am dis-
turbed in thinking over my earthly life, but if you will wait for me I will
remember all, everything I used to know. I assure you I will, and you shall
know what we so long ago wished to know.

I often say to mother [?] Ann Ann e. (Yes, is this Annie ?) Yes, I
came with father just for a moment because he is weak. Do you remember
how I looked . . looked . . and the little pansie flowers I pressed
in one of my books . . . [pansie flowers not deciphered at once.]
pansies I pressed in one . . . [read correctly] Yes. (I think so.)

[I said yes, here, less because of any clear recollection of the fact than
because the faint feeling that it was true justified an encouraging answer. I
do not know whether I can confirm this or not. — J. H. H.] [August 1st,
1899. Not capable of any confirmation. — J. H. H.]

On reading this reference to my mother, and the names "Ann" and
** Anne " while revising the proofs it flashed across my mind that my mother
kept some pansies pressed in an old Bible. This recollection is very clear.
I do not know who pressed them, and inquiry of my aunts and my living
sister does not confirm my memory of them. But this sister was only seven
years old when my sister Annie died, and only twelve years old when my
mother died, and is the only other member of the family that is in any way
likely to remember anything about the facts, as she alone has shown any
disposition to keep and protect my mother's relics and mementos of others.
But it was entirely characteristic of my mother to keep articles like pressed

426

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[part

pansies, especially if they were the product of her deceased children or
relatives. It was she that was instrumental in having the hair wreath made
from the locks of the family and dead relatives. Besides, she had preserved
with religious sacredness some little trinkets of a cousin who had been
a missionary in India. Hence, it is intrinsically probable that the incident
of the pansies is true, but the late occurrence of the recollection and the
circumstances under which the recall was made, might suggest an illusion of
memory on my part, and I cannot press the significance of the incident.
(May 25th, 1900.)— J. H. H.]

I am more fond of them here. But I am going away now.

Oh, will I see you again, or what will I tell father for you . . What
will I tell father . . I cannot see. I am going.

(Tell father I shall be glad to hear about Mr. McClellan and Mr. Cooper
the next time.)

I will, but they are here, dear, don't you U D.

(R. H. : I think she'd better stop, Rector, please.)

I will go. Good-bye.

I hear thy father say I will return.

Here . . here comes our leader, and we will obey Him. R.
Peace to thee, friends. Go thou forth and worry not.
We cease now and may the grace of God be and abide with thee ever-
more. Farewell + I. S. D. {R} (R. H. : Amen.)

[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]

There's . . there's . . two . .

Ah [Shakes her head affirmatively several times.]

Introduction.

The same physical phenomena as the day before accompanied the
approach of the trance > It was curious to note the gradual arrest of
the tendency to cough as anaesthesia supervened. I observed, soon after
Mrs. P. sat clown in the chair to go into the trance, that she sighed
quite perceptibly several times. This was repeated later as the trance
deepened until it ran into short, quick, but heavy breathing, then all
at once stopped as the head fell down upon the pillow. — J. H. H.

MayZQth, 1899.

ReroM of Sitting. May 30th, 1899.

Professor J. H. H. and R. H.
[Mrs. P, h Hublim. I. **Sh — h — h." — apparently repeating an injunction
for.jniet.]

[Rector writes.]

HAIL. (R. H. : Hail) [Hand appears to wait for S. to speak.]
(R. H. : Say Hoim>thingt) (What shall I say ?) (R. H. : Answer the greet-
i ng. ) ( W tileui nu this morning.)

God's biasings un the* daily +.

Digitized by Google

XLl]

Appendix III.

427

Behold the light of Heaven will shine forth and give thee greater know-
ledge of this life. Imperator.

We meet thee this day with joy, and peace be to all.

[R. H. interpreted give above as guide, and told Rector he could not
read it.]

He saith and He will give thee (R. H. : "greater knowledge of this
life ") Amen. R.

(R. H. : We meet thee this day " — what comes next ?) With joy.
Come and listen to our teachings and all will be well.
Yes, here I am.

James. James. James. (Good morning. Good morning, father. I
am glad to see you, and hope you will be able to express yourself clearly
to-day as you did yesterday.)

I hear, and I am really glad to hear you, James. How I have longed to
find you . . .

[8. starts to turn over page, although there was room for more writing.]
(R. H. : Don't . . . get as much on a page as we can.)
and now I am very much nearer this . . to-day.

I have talked it over with my old friend Cooper, and we both agree that
we will very clearly speak our minds here.

We are the same friends to-day that we always were, and James also.
[This does not appear to be addressing me as the following indicates. —
J. H. H.]

Let me speak. R.

There is a gentleman on our side named James also. (R. H. : Yes.)
Blindly do not get the one here confused with the one in the body.

[This is an interesting caution at this point, though I wonder why they
felt the necessity of giving it. I could name two Jameses to which it could
apply.— J. H. H.]

I am still here. I have been wondering if you remembered anything
about me. I am your cousin H., H. Mc Allen.

[The first initial to this name is not correct, but as the second " H "
repeats the first we may have only the second initial of the name intended.
I do not remember distinctly whether the second initial of this cousin, the
relationship being rightly named, is correct or not. — J. H. H.] [His name,
I find, was, as I supposed, R. H. McClellan, or Robert Harvey McClellan. —
August 1st, 1899.— J. H. H.]

Don't . . do you not hear me ? (Yes, I hear you. I shall be glad
for you to go on. ) I am with you still you see. Do you remember Wallace
. . . and Williams, the Williams boys I mean. [I do not recognise at
present any pertinence in these names. — J. H. H.] [See Note 45, p. 503.]

I am at the moment trying to think what became of Robert.

Speak to me, for God's sake, and help me to reach . . .

(Yes. I remember Robert, but which Robert is it ?) [Repeated.]

I think you say, which Rob is it ? Well, Hyslop. (That's right.) I
mean Rob Hyslop, of course ; which other . . other . . could I mean ?

[This is the name of my brother, whom we always called Rob. instead
of Robert. The explanation of it and the curious imputation that I should
not think of any other is very interesting. The evidence a little later seems

428

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

to be that the communicator wan not my father, but the cousin mentioned
in the previous note. — J. H. H.]

(Yes, I remember him. He is in Cincinnati.)

Give him my greetings. I am a little dazed for the moment, but have
patience and I will be clear presently. This is * * [undec.] it . . .
Are you still here ? Which one was it . . was it not Robert who got his
foot injured 1

(I do not remember that Robert got his foot injured, but there was one
Robert, my father, who got his leg hurt.)

We know this but we want you to know it too, and it was on the railroad
. . . [R. H. stops the writing by turning over the page.]

Do not interrupt me when I am listening.

(Oh I know.)

[There is evidently much confusion in this passage. Robert is the
name of my brother, but it does not fit the incident which I have been
curious to see from the time I began the sittings last December. The injury
of the foot on the railway which cost the life of my uncle last fall was a
sudden one, and his death was clearly alluded to in my second sitting,
December 24th, 1898. This, too, is the uncle whose name cost so much
effort in yesterday's sitting and failed. The linking of the name Robert with
the incident is a mistake, but I am not sure that it is a message from my
cousin. It might be a question of Rector's to the party trying to communi-
cate. The answer to my statement referring to father's leg, he having
suffered for many years from locomotor ataxy, shows that my language was
not understood, but the allusion to the hurt foot and railroad is specific and
pertinent, if only it had been accom}>anied by the right name. — J. H. H.]

(Yes, I know that, but it was not Robert, it was another name that has
already been mentioned.)

(R. H. : Oh Lord !) [R. H. made this ejaculation as S. spoke rapidly,
and R. H. feared that he might not note every word.]

Yes. Well your father is with me here and he is helping ine, and George
Pelham. to tell you these things.

L *^ was Will Will William . . listen friend.

I J ilt i nut know the pertinence of this reference to William if it has any. —
J . H . II . | [ William is the name of one of my brothers. (See Note 45,
p. BQ&j August 1st, 1899.— J. H. H.]

il< - i injured while on his way west . . . [I do not know whether
lliti 14 w*ty west " is true or not.— J. H. H.]

Look i*ut, H., I am here. G. P. (R. H.: Good, George.) + sent me
m>mu moments ago.

I UN in I am thinking of one of the boys who got his foot injured on

* tin railroad, and he is there with you. Hear. [The use of " one of
the bojfa" is wrong, supposing that my uncle is in mind, and so also the
i$4t«Jtient that he is on this side so far as I know. — J. H. H.] [See Note

rm }

means on this side ?) (R. H. : Hm.)
h .->, was it George ? [Wrong so far as I know. — J. H. H.] I have been
think . . think where is . . . and do you remember Peter
. . or belonged to Nanie i [I can attach no meaning to the

Digitized by Google

XLI. 3

Appendix III.

429

names of 44 Peter" and "Nanie" in this connection. — J. H. H.] [See Note
63, p. 515.— J. H. H.]

(I do not recall Peter now, but I remember some one by that first name.)
here.

(I do not know whether he is there or not. Is he on your side ?) Yes,
we «ay yes.

I am W. H. McAllen [7] (R. H. : Is that W. H. McAllen ?)

The name does not sound right to us, friend. It is, he says, Mc . . .

Hounds like Mc L E L L E N . . . . G. P. . . .

Yes, I am he.

[This is interesting for the spontaneous recognition on the part of the
writer that the name was not correctly given, and for the equally spontaneous
trial to give it right. At this point apparently it is G. P. who interrupts
and gives the name. [0/. " Hettie G. P.," p. 434.] The last syllable should
be 44 AN." — J. H. H,] [Only just now my attention was called] to the fact
that the 44 C " is also omitted before the 44 1." (June 1st, 1900).— J. H. H.]

(Yes. I am very glad to hear from you. What relation are you to me ?)
[I asked the question to be assured of the communicator. — J. H. H.] Your
cousin. (That's right.) (This answer is correct. — J. H. H.]

Have you forgotton that, James? [An interesting question. — J. H. H.]
I am a good soldier, don't you see I do not forget a comrade. [No special
meaning that I know in this language. — J. H. H.]

(Yes. I remembered you well, but I wanted to be sure that I got the
name just right.)

Oh I see. Well, that accounts for your not speaking to me when I came
before with Uncle Hyslop. [See p. 422.]

(Yes, that is right. Do you remember what I was doing when you saw
me last I)

Yes, you were writing, teaching, I believe. [Correct. — J. H. H.]
(Don't you remember a meeting in which I spoke ?)

[Much excitement.] Oh yes. Oh yes. Oh yes. Oh yes. (R. H. : Calm.)
but I could not exactly remember just what it was:

[This lapse of memory, if such it could be called, is natural enough, to say
nothing of the general nature of the question I put. It would be most
natural for my cousin to think of me as teaching, and as he had been ill some
months before his death and after I saw him at the meeting which he
arranged for me, my question might not suggest what was in my mind. On
the hypothesis of telepathy it ought to have been gotten. The recognition
and excitement after my second question are very interesting, though it
cannot be treated as evidential since we can suppose my question as implying
its own answer. — J. H. H.]

(S. to R. H. : Want another pencil ?)

And have you any knowledge of Merritt —

[I did not understand at the time the meaning of this name nor have I
since been able to ascertain any relevance in it (June 1st, 1900). — J. H. H.]
The machine is not right, H. [From G. P.]
[R. H. substitutes a fresh pencil.]
of Merritt —

Wait a moment. His father is coming.

430

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Yes, James, I am here now. You must know what I mean when I aa y I
do not think it did me any good. The fact is it was time for me to come and
nothing could do me any good. Do you U D. [A very pertinent remark
if interpreted in reference to his disease. — J. H. H.] (Yes. I understand.)
I am glad it is as it is. (I am very glad you feel so about it.) And I want you
to feel as I do. You are tired, James.

[This is a correct statement and is interesting for the dogmatic character
of it. I was very tired from hard work at the college in the work referred
to below.— J. H. H.]

(Yes, father, I have had some hard work with these communications and
investigations.)

but do not make it hard, make it as you can easy.

You know how I used to talk to you about overdoing anything, and you
will remember your tireless energy. It is I, your father, who is speaking
now ; and how absorbed you used to get in your work, no matter what the
nature of it was. Take my advice and don't do it, but be patient and work
faithfully ; the activities will go on after you are done there, do you hear
me? I . . . faithfully . . . activities.

[The advice and comments here made by my father are very characteristic
The most suggestive coincidental feature of it is the reference to the way he
used to talk to me about my hard working. The word " overdoing " was
eKjjecially the term he used to employ. The same could be said of the word
"absorbed," and "patient." He always advised me about being patient
and more slow and deliberate in my work. He was so himself. Some of
the other remarks in this passage are suggestive either of what is going on
with him on the other side or of my work going on here. They have no eviden-
tial value, but they are curiously consistent with this whole phenomenon. —
J. H. H.] [See Note 47, p. 503, and p. 313.]

(Yes. I hear. I expect to rest this summer.)

Going home ? (Yes, I am going home.) [I had resolved about a week or
more ago to make this trip West on business matters. — J. H. H.]

God bless and keep you while there. Give my love to them and all.
(R. H. : It means one and all.)

And do not forget that I shall not be far off. Do you remember when I
got hurt, James ? (Yes, father, I remember when you got hurt.)

[Father was injured by some overwork in the harvest field, and the effect
of it in a few years was to disable him entirely and to render him unfit for
any labour whatsoever on the farm. It resulted in locomotor ataxy and the
life of an invalid for over thirty years. The injury took place when I was
very young and I do not remember being a personal witness of it. I was
told of it by father himself, and hence my language here is not meant to
imply that I was a witness of the injury (Of. p. 428). — J. H. H.]

And do you recall the fire I spoke to you about. [Cf. pp. 324, 503.]

(I remember a fire but I am not certain which fire you refer to.) (I
remember a fire but I am not certain which fire you mean.)

We lived near, and, although it did not interfere, it gave me a fright. My
thoughts are quite clear on this point. I think there can be no mintaAiwg it.

[There is a curious persistence about this fire. I know of no such instance
within my memory except the railroad collision and fire in connection with

Appendix III.

431

it. But this neither fits in with the statement about its being near and
about the fright nor accords with anything I can recall. My aunt was on the
same train, and had a narrow escape, but father did not know this until
afterward. There was a fire in the near neighbourhood of father's old
home connected with a mill, but this was before my time. — J. H. II.] [See
Note 48, p. 503.]

There are some things which I have said whilst speaking to here . .
you . . [Hand indicates that you is to be inserted in its place.] (R. H. :
"to you here") [Assent] which may seem muddled. Forgive it, my son,
and if you wish to straighten it ask me and I will.

Charles. (Is this brother Charles ?) Yes and John.

I just called them . . I just called them.

(What John is this ?) Brother John. [Father had no brother.- J. H. H.]
(Is this brother Charles speaking?) Yes, and father. We are both
speaking.

Chester [1] Clarke [?] and Charles [J] Yes.

Oh, speak, James. Help me to keep my thoughts clear.

(Yes. I think you are uncle, are you not T)

No, it is I, your father, who is speaking, and I am telling you about
Charles and John.

(What John is that ? I remember Charles, but not John, unless it is
John some one else.)

Mc John. There are two of the McLellen over here. (Yes.) [This I
knew to be correct. — J. H. H.]

And this one is John. (Yes.) (Do you remember where he lived on earth ?)
I do. What . . . (Do you remember where he lived on earth ?)

(R. H. to S. : You're getting away beyond the record.) [S. was talking
foster than R. H. could record.]

(I remember John McClellan.)

I don't believe I U D just what you said, James.

(Do you remember where he lived on earth ?)

Ohio O H [S. asks R. H. to read.] (R. H. : Ohio.)

Was it that you meant ? (That is right.) I told it I thought before.
OHIO.

[This long passage beginning with Charles is a very interesting one though
only two things in it are clear. The confusion begins with the answer to my
question about "brother Charles." But when the "Chester," "Clarke"
and "Charles" appear in this connection, the reference is undoubtedly
to the one whose name appeared as uncle Charles. This uncle "Charles"
was his brother-tu4ai0.] [See Note 49, p. 504.]

[In my original note I explained that I thought the John McClellan here
indicated was the one I knew at college, and it was not until the sitting of
June 6th (Cf. p. 471) that I understood my mistake, though a letter received
before the sittings were over told me that the John McClellan I had in mind
was still living. (June 1st, 1900.)— J. H. H.]

(That is good. Father, that is very good.)

I am good, am I ? Well, why shouldn't I be good ? What else could I be,
James, and set an example for my sons ? (Yes.) But you were the best I
ever had. (Well . . .) I feel this deeply, James.

432

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

(Well, father, I am glad of that, but when I referred to your being good,
I meant the message that came through was correct and fine.)
Oh, I see, I misunderstood it.
(fc. to R. H. : He corrects that.)

[This language is characteristic of father, as I remarked in my earlier
sittings (see sitting for December 24th, 1898). It was especially charac-
teristic of him to see that his example to us should be all that it should ever
be in a father. But the misunderstanding of my question was a curious one.
It illustrates the imperfection of the communications, as well as the liability
to misunderstanding, perhaps on both sides, on any theory. — J. H. H.]

Oh yes, to be sure. Well, speak a little slower, James, and I am I
feel . . hear . ,

slower. [In the writing above the I was omitted and the word was inter-
preted as sooner.] I shall be able to hear it better.

There was another one here whom you must have forgotten.
Do you remember Mary Ann Anne. (Well, the rest of it ?) Do you
remember Mary Anne Hyslop. (Yes, I do. What relation was she to me ?)
Have you forgotten your mother ? (No, no, father. I have not forgotten,
but I wanted to see it written out here.)

[This is almost the correct name of my mother. The following shows
how much of it is correct Mar — Ann Hyslop. Her name was not Mary. —

Well, speak to her, my boy.
(Mother, I am glad to hear from you. What have you to say I)
I can only say that God has has been good to us all, and after all our
struggles in body we are again together reunited and happy . . and
happy, and I am glad to see you my dear and I want to tell you that I have
watched over you many a day when you little knew I was near.

I am tired speaking, but I will speak again soon. Father will help you
now. Good-bye (Good-bye, mother.) and God bless you always. [All
very characteristic. — J. H. H.] I want to speak of the rest, but I am too
weak. — M. A. H.

[These are correct initials of her name. — J. H. H.]

(S. to R. H. : Look at the hand.) [Hand becomes somewhat limp and
sways slightly on table.]

Yes, James, my son, I am still here. I have come to keep my promise to
you. I want to go back to the old home and recall my life there, but if I
can see you from time to time I will tell you all.

James, do you remember my preaching

(I remember you used to talk and read to us about the sermons.)
and . . . Sunday . . . mornings . . at home.
(Yes. I remember that well.)
Do you remember the dining-room and prayers.

[This passage beginning with the question about father's preaching is
exceedingly interesting. Only he was not a preacher, and would never say
44 Sunday." 44 Sabbath " is the word he always used, but the word Sunday
may have been due to G. P., who was apparently assisting (see below p. 434).
I may also explain here more fully than I did in a previous note (p. 413)
what significance may be attached to the term 44 preaching." Corroborative

J. H. H.]

LI.]

Appendix III.

433

lao of my interpretation of the use of the word "Sunday " is the fact that
lere was some delay both before and after the word. The church to which
ly father belonged was a small one and could not afford to pay for rtfeular
reaching. The consequence was that we were often without it, perhaps
early half the time, until it had, in his later days, to be wholly abandoned,
tut very often — if I remember rightly, always — when there was no sermon,
ither would gather his family about him on Sabbath mornings and say that
s we could not go to church, he would read and comment upon a chapter
f the Bible. He always expressly indicated that it was to take the place
f a sermon. Morning prayers were often held in what we then called the
itchen, where we always ate our meals except when we had company. They
rere often held in what we called the sitting-room, but what is usually
ailed the dining-room by most people, and in which we often dined ourselves.
Svening prayers were held nearly always in the sitting-room. But it is
nteresting to remark that 44 prayers" is not the word that would be most
tatural to him. He always spoke of the service as 44 worship," or 44 having
vorship.".— J. H. H.]

(Yes. I remember them well.)

Think there is one of the boys I have not yet mentioned, isn't there ?
Yes. I think so. Yes. I think you have not mentioned him very clearly.)

Well, I was not sure, but I would like to reach to brother Robert myself
. Robert cousin. [R. H. asks what the word is after 44 reach to "]

Do not speak so fast, friend. If they spoke so fast here I could never tell
rhee anything.

I would like to refer to brother Robert myself . . .

B RO (R. H. : 44 brother")

Reach . . . Reach he said first, then refer . . refer.
Do you know who I mean, James ?
(Yes, father, I know very well.)

(This passage with reference to my brother Robert is a very remarkable
me. It turns upon the incoherence indicated by the words 44 reach brother
iobert myself . . . Robert cousin." The name of my brother Robert
vas given on December 27th, 1898, at my third sitting, but the name
iyslop was not mentioned. In the earlier part of this present sitting
>oth names were given in full by my cousin R. H. McClellan, and it is
nteresting to remark this because father at no time gave the last name of
ny brothers and sisters. But here there is the recognition of the person
who had mentioned him before, his relation to me, his first name, the dis-
inction between him as a person and my brother Robert, and the desire to
* reach him myself " in distinction from the previous message. Evidently
kere was the usual difficulty in getting the name (McClellan) which had
peen given previously, and 44 cousin" was thrown in to identify him and
fetinguish him from my brother. The mention of my brother in connec-
ion with the prayers is especially interesting, as father would often pray
)or this brother as if his heart would break. — J.*H. H.]

I am glad you hear me so clearly. There is more than a million things
\ would like to speak about, but I do not seem to be able to think of them
B, especially when I am here. It was not so long ago that I came here.
Dorrect : a little over two years ago. — J. H. H.]

434

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PABT

Do you remember my library . . LIBRA . . my books, and what
has become of them ? I think you had some. [Cf. pp. 335, 377, 490.]
(Yes. I have some and mother has the others.)

I am sure it . . they are all right. I . . . . they . . yes
[R. H. not sure that the previous they was correctly read.] wherever they
are, but there are some things on my mind which I must get off. I think
if I could help you to recall my sitting in that chair reading my paper I
would be glad. Could you not ask about this for me ? [Cf. pp. 387, 419.]

[I do not know why these persistent references to his books and reading in
' ' that chair " should be made, unless we treat them as automatisms. The
chair was a special one always reserved for him, and I think had some
historical interest in connection with the family. If so, I can understand
the attempt to say something about it. He has frequently referred to his
" library " in earlier sittings, and on one occasion in those sittings it seemed
to imply a room. I said in my note, and it can be repeated here, that he
never called any room his library. But he evidently means the books them-
selves in this instance when using the word. — J. H. H.]

(Yes, father, I have sent word to mother and asked about it.)

I am glad because I cannot feel satisfied to say anything that is not in the
body connected with some of us. If I do you will not [know] me, will you \
(R. H. : " not know ? ") me. .

Now I have not spoken of Abbie yet . . (Abbie is not quite right)
Addie, no, did you say no ? (That is not quite right.) [repeated]

A . . . Nabbie. (R. H. : Is that Nabbit ?)

A b sounds like Abbie, is it Addie ?

(What relation is that to me ?) She is his sister.

(Do you mean Annie f) No.

(Oh, well I know. I know who you mean now. Yes. I know who yoe
mean now. But it is not spelled quite right.)

He seems to say . . .
let me hear it for you Rector. [Apparently by G. P.]

H Abbie. (The letter H is right.)

Yes, but let me hear it and I will get it. — G. P.

Hattie. (That is very nearly right.) Harriet.

(Pretty nearly. Try it one letter at a time.)

H E T T I E. G. P. (That is right. Yes. That is right and fine.)
Ett [?] Hettie.— G. P. [Cf. " McLellen G. P." p. 429.]
Yes, do you hear it, James ? (Yes. I hear it.)

[This attempt to get the name of my sister is very interesting. When
* * Abbie" was given I thought the intention was to give the name of my
stepmother Maggie, but as soon as " Hattie" came I saw that it was my
sister who had not yet been mentioned. The nickname Hettie is correct for
her, though we never called her that, at least I never did so, and I knov
some of the others and her friends called her Etta. This seems to have
been written partly, "Ett . ."at the end. But it was near enough foi
me to recognise it clearly for Henrietta and I did not press for this lasi,
which was probably not the natural form of using her name. — J. H. H.]

[I learn that father always called her Henrietta. Some of the friends
of the family called her Etta. (July, 1899).— J. H. H.]

XL!.]

Appendix III.

435

Well, do you wish me to tell you about her ?

[About her written on top of page already written upon, before R. H.
pould turn over. R. H. said rather sharply the usual words " One moment,
please," used by him to Rector to stop the writing while the page is
turned.]

What is it, H., did you speak ? [Apparently from G. P.]

(R. H. : Only, Rector, I wished to turn over the page, as you were
rriting on the same sheet.)

Oh yes, all right, friend. But thy friend George is helping me to . .
in speaking with this elderly gentleman. He had a marvellously good
memory when in his body until the very last, and he is extremely anxious to
remember everything, but will assist his children or child. [R. H. interprets
rhild as died,]

now . . .

I mean child, child, friend, not die.

James, do you remember a little bridge we used to cross in going up
fche church ? (R. H. : " Church.") [Cf. p. 421.]
(S. to R. H. : No. May be.)
to the church.

(Yes. I remember the bridge and the creek.)

Yes, I do very well. I do also. Mother just called my mind to it.

[This reference to "a little bridge" is pertinent and interesting if it refers
o the one which the communication suggested. But it is too indefinite for
ne to attach any evidential weight to it. The interesting part of it, however,
s the statement that he was reminded of it by (my) mother. This would
:haracterise her rather than father, because he had not gone to church in
hat direction for twenty years before his death, and mother died (1869)
ibout the time when we ceased going to church that way. — J. H. H.] [There
nay be a doubt about the reference being to my mother (November 3rd,
L899). — J. H. H.]

Hettie. Tell me about her. Tell me about her.

(Hettie is at school now getting ready to teach.)

I know she must be a good girl. Do you know how fond I was of her ?
Yes, I know that very well.)

Does she ever speak of me ? I don't suppose you can tell because you
ire not with her often . . often.

(S. to R. H. : That's Hen, isn't it ?) (R. H. : No.)

[I thought the word " often" was an attempt to give the name Henrietta,
rod thought it might go on. But I saw in a moment that Dr. Hodgson was
correct in his interpretation. The statement is true. My sister was born
the first or second year I was at college, and I was at home very little after
that. — J. H. H.]

James, I am * * [undec.] I am glad he [?] is . . he is . .
here comes John again, we will be obliged to let him go for the present.

And if you will speak to me, James, I will tell you that cousin Annie is
very anxious to send her love to H . . h . . H. Hettie.

(I will. I will give her love to her. I will give cousin Annie's love to

(R. H. : Yes.)

Hettie.)

436

J. H. Hynlop, Ph.D.

And do vou remember anything of Ruth i I often hear her speak of her,
and . . she is only a friend I think. [See Note 50, p. 505.]
I am . . in fact the light is going out.
I wish thee to speak, friend, ere we depart.
[Hand listens to R. H.]

(Mrs. B. wrote me late the night of the fifth day after last Sabbath,
saying she had a painful toothache and could not attend here. I sent word
to the light that there would be no meeting, and she went away on some
work of her own. Then Mrs. B. found next morning that she could come,
and she came, but the light was away from home. It was of course entirely
Mrs. B's. misunderstanding of her own illness that caused her to miss.)

We thank thee for this explanation, and we will answer by saying all who
fail to meet us it is their loss not ours U D.

James, my boy, I will meet you again . . sincerely [?]

Your affectionate father. [This is the exact form of closing his letters u>
me. It is of course common and not evidential. — J. H. H.] [Cf. p. 456.]

(Yes, father. I am glad. So good-bye to-day. I shall see you to-
morrow. )

We cease now, and may the blessings of Heaven be with thee. Fare-
well + Imperator. { R }

[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]

Hyslop. Hyslop.

All right. Good-bye.

There's Imperator.

Saying a prayer.

Farewell. [In a loud voice.]

I didn't want to go. [In crying voice.]

Introduction.

There were the same general physical indications of the oncoming
trance, but also interesting variations. I have noticed that hardly any
two of the trances are exactly alike. There is no appearance of the
artificial in them, such as is so easily remarked in the simulated trance
of a fraud.

The first sign of the trance in this case was a few stares into space,
and a slight elevation of the open eyes. Then several cases of gaping
which showed some weariness, of which Mrs. P. had complained when
she sat down. She placed her hand on her head a little above the
forehead, and appeared to press it heavily. Presently the stare became
quite fixed, and the mouth noticeably drawn. Then her face twitched
slightly, and the mouth opened a little, and the tongue pushed forward
a little. Then she suddenly said : "See a light," and in a moment her
eyes closed, and a slight choking noise in the throat occurred, and her
head fell suddenly on the pillow. After the lapse of a few minute*

Digitized by

XLL]

Appendix III.

437

heavy breathing commenced, and, with the mouth quite open, and the
tongue protruding somewhat, the choking noise in the throat occurred
again. In a moment the breathing became easier, but was still pro-
longed and heavier than the normal. — J. H. H.
May 31**, 1899.

Record of Sitting, May 31st, 1899.

Prof. J. H. H. and R. H.
Mrs. P.'s sublim. I. " See a light." (R. H. : See a light ?)

[Rector writes.]

[Cross in air.] HAIL (R. H. : Hail.) We hail thee this day with
peace, friends of earth. (R. H. : Amen.)

Goest thou not far off but remain to hear us out + .

(R. H. : Do you desire me to leave the room and be ready to return
when called upon T)

No, friend, but return to us daily until we cease. U D.

(R. H. : Yes, I understand.)

Sleep thou well. Eat thy food not in haste

(S. : Whew ! ) [Hand points to R. H.]

but listen to our warning, do it not so more + .

(R. H. : Yes, I will remember.)

[This was a very singular incident to me on the part of the trance per-
sonality. Dr. Hodgson thought that this probably referred to the fact that
we hurried through our lunch after the sitting in order to get to work as
soon as possible on the records. — J. H. H.]

Keep thyself quite calm, rest and come to us daily.

Fail not, and all else we leave with God + . (R. H. : Amen.) Farewell.
Friend, we hail thee once more, and all is well.
(R. H. to S. : That's to you.)

Hearest thou me i (Yes. I hear, and hail thee welcome.)

[Hand seems to listen to R. H.] (R. H. : Do you wish me to speak or
isk any question, Rector /)

He felt it necessary for thee to take a message for a friend, (R. H. :
STes, very good. I am ready.) which will avoid confusion U D. (R. H. :
Fes.)

Say to Mrs. M. that he received the roses and is grateful. (R. H. : Yes.)
More later. F. R. H. M. [Mrs. M. (See Proceedings S.P.R, Vol. XIII.,
pp. 341-349, and also this Report, p. 458) had placed some flowers for her
msband, the communicator here, about three days previously, but, as I
iscertained later, they were not roses. — R.H.]

James, James, rest your body and soul and fear no man.

[The admonition to rest is pertinent when we recall the previous rofermice
to my weariness. The expression " fear no man" has a possible meaning
which it is impossible to explain without speaking of myself. — J. H. II.]

I am with you to-day. God bless and keep you, my son. [Perfectly
maracteristic— J. H. H.] I hear you faintly, so speak slowly [read at "*
u» yourself].

Digitized by

438

J. H. Hynlop, PLD.

[PABT

(R. H. to S. : You murmur these words over.) [This meant for S.
instead of R. H. to read the words as they were written.]
and . . slowly and I will hear it all.

(Yest father, good morning, I am glad to hear you again.;

I heard every word and I am coming nearer and nearer to you. There is
no dream here. (Yes.) And shut out the thought theory and do not let it
trouble you. I went on theorising all my earthly life and what did I . .
did I gain by it? My thoughts only became more subtle [suttle] and
. . . . SUTTLE . . . and unsatisfactory. There is a God, an
allwise and omnipotent God who is our guide, and if we follow the best
within ourselves we will know more of Him.

Now speaking of Swedenborg. What does it matter whether his teach-
ings were right or wrong so long as we are individually . . . and . .
our . . ourselves here . .
lost two or three words
. . are our selves here . .

lost one or (R. H. : 4 4 lost one or two words," yes.)

Never mind, I am clearing, James, and all will be well.
[This is a very singular passage beginning with the reference to " the
thought theory" and ending with 4 4 all will be well." My father had no
confidence in philosophical speculation, or 44 theorising " as he used to call it
at times, but he always drew an unconscious distinction between philosophy
and his own attempts to give intelligent meaning to his conception of
religion and its doctrines. He was always explaining and "theorising"
about these to himself and us, though within the limits of Biblical concept ion
and doctrine. The reference to God in the passage is very characteristic,
because when he found himself at a loss to explain any difficult matter he
always fell back upon his faith in an all wise and omnipotent God who would
some day make things clear. But the most striking features of the [mssage
are the references to the 44 thought theory " and to Swedenborg. It will be
remembered that he twice before referred to Swedenborg, the first time in
connection with his reminder of our conversation (in 1894) [Correct date,
1895 ] about the scientific evidence for immortality. I had explained to him
li**w thought-transference stood in the way of proving it, though it might be
ry for communication. The reference here to this theory of telepathy,
if* connection with Swedenborg, about whom we talked at the time, and to
liiTKiiiial survival are facts of extraordinary unity and interest. — J. H. H.]
Here conies John and Hathaway, and he is with him here.
(R> H. : It looks like HcMany.) HATH. (R. H. : Hathaway?)
H . HATHAWAY

| i know nothing whatsoever about anyone by the name of Hathaway.
1 have only seen the name in print.— J. H. H.]

\ is James here ? Ask him what can I do for you, my boy. I am back,
and I feel much freer than I have before. I just waited to clear the way,
Uiere is a young man here who is very kind to me. [Doubtless G. P. ia
S.]

ho you remember yet about Williams ?
(S. to R. H. : Shall I answer ?) (R. H. : Yes.)

( What Williams is it ?) He is F R A N K . John is anxious to know.

Appendix III.

439

Speak, James. [Name Frank Williams suggests nothing. — J. H. H.].
(I do not remember Frank Williams, but tell more about him, and I may
recall him.)

He had either two or three boys, sons ; they were Arthur, Fred and
Irvin . . Irvin . . IR VIN . . . [These names suggest nothing.
— J. H. H ]

You must remember, it seems. I am not quite sure that you hear all I
aay, but take out as much as you hear . . hear. (R. H. to S. : Why
don't you say something ?) (Yes. I hear it all clearly.)

You may have to find out about them if you do not remember them.
(Yes. I shall try if you tell me where they lived on earth.) They lived not
far from me in Ohio, and I remember Frank very well. [Name of State
correct for alleged communicator. — J. H. H.]

(R. H. to S. : Ask if Nannie knew them.) (Did Nannie know them ?)
She must have heard about them. (What kind of work did they do ?) Frank
was at the library . . Library, and sent the books over to me just
before I left. [See Note 51, p. 506.] Do you know where F R a n k Hyslop
is.

(Yes, I know where he is. Where did you know him ? Where did you
know Frank Hyslop ?)

What did I know of Frank Hyslop. Well, of course I know him very
well, and all . . all of my cousins. Why shouldn't I, James ?

(Yes. What John is this talking to me ?) Mc. (Right.) L E L L A N.

(Yes, I thought so, but do you remember where you saw Frank Hyslop ?)
I do not exactly, as I do not remember just how long I have been here. I
think he was at Uncle Robert's. I am not sure about this, James.

(Well, don't worry, but did you ever have anything to do with a college ?)

[Excitement in hand.] Yes, of course, 1 am not forgetting that, but
sure enough it was there I saw Frank, and I have a faint recollection
of his going to be a doctor. D o c t o R. [I know nothing of this what-
ever. On the contrary, my brother expected to teach. — J. H. H] (Cf. Note
67, p. 511.)

[R. H. asks about the undec. words above.] Wait a moment and he will
return and clear it up.

Which I have a faint recollection

(R. H. : Rector, I can read that part, but I cannot read the two words
after 44 1 am not forgetting that but ")

It . . yes . . and I have a faint . . .

(R. H. : No. I understand that, but I cannot read the two words after
* * I am not forgetting that but ")
Wait.

(R. H. : If he does not remember his exact words, never mind.)
Ah, but U D, friend, it is I, Rector, who has to hear him and take it to
thee.

But I remember something about one of the boys who wanted to be a
doctor. Do you, James ? (What boy wanted to be a doctor ?) One of the
Hyslop boys.

(WeU, I do not remember it myself, but do you remember your son
where I went to college 7)

Digitized by Google

440

H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

Well, of course, hut you see I am not quite clear yet, but it will surely
come back to me, be patient with me, James, and I will help you.

(Yes, don't . . . yes, don't worry about it. Is your wife on your
side or on this side ? Is your wife on your side or is she on this side ?)

She is here not . . . wait . . she is there and not on this side
. . . our life. He must know this. I am sure.

(No, I did not know it because I do not often write to your son.) But
Frank (Yes, Frank will know.) will know, and if you ask him he will
tell you. [Sudden jerk in hand.] [Note 52, p. 506.]

James, I am your brother Charles, and I am well and happy. Give my
love to the new sister Hettie, and tell her I will know her some time. Father
is . . . often speaks of her.

(S. " Father often speaks of her") Yes. Do you hear ? (Yes, I hear.)
[This reference to "the new sister Hettie " is a most curious incident.
This sister was born some ten or eleven years after the death of my brother
Charles, and hence it is pertinent for him to call her a 4 4 new sister,"
as if indicating that he never knew her, which of course was true.—

Well, it was Frank who had the [who hthe] pictures and father would
like you to have them if you are still in the body, James. Speak to me.
[R. H. asks about the words after Frank above] Cannot hear.
[R. H. repeats] who had the pictures.
(Yes. I shall have the pictures, Charles.)

He asked me to say this for him. His voice troubles him a little when
trying to speak.

[This statement about my father's voice troubling him is a curious one.
If troubles incurred when embodied can prolong their influence on the soul
after death, or are revived in the act of communicating, the allusion here
would have considerable evidential weight, as previous notes show that father
suffered, and died, from both paralysis and cancer of the larynx. — J. H. H.]

(Yes, I understand. Yes, I understand.)

But if you could only see his delight when he hears you, I am sure, my
dear brother, you would never doubt that he still clings to you. It is his
one desire to comfort and help you, but he wants you to go home and rest
there.

James, one thing more . . more. Do you know that I was a life-long
friend to you all ? (Yes, I know it.)

[Evident change to father in the next sentence. — J. H. H.]

And do you remember the visit I paid to you . . you ? [Of. p. 474.]

(When was it ?)

I cannot tell the date, but it was just before I came here.
[If this had been 44 the visit you paid me," it would have been nearer
right and pertinent.— J. H. H.] [See Note 53, p.507-]
(Who is speaking now I)
It is father who is speaking now. (Yes.)
But he seems a little dazed.

I am coming, H., to help out. (R. H. : Thanks, George, we shall be
glad.) How are you ? (R. H. : First rate. We shall be glad to have your
help.) All well. John Hart sends love and best wishes. Now . , .

J. H. H.]

XLI.]

Appendix III.

441

(R. H. : Give him my dearest remembrances.) I had ... I will [See
Proceeding*, Vol. XIII., pp. 363-7.]

I had a friend who . . used to call . . do you remember
Dr. Merdith . . Mek . . . Merdith . . Do you remember
Derdith . . .

(R. H. : I remember that Meredith, Harry Meredith.) Yes.

(R. H : Was a friend of yours.) Yes, what has become of him ?

(R. H. : I don't think I knew him personally myself. I saw his name a
month or two ago in some paper, but I forget the circumstances.) Give him
my love if you ever chance to meet him . . chance. [See Proceedings,
Vol. XIII., p. 298.]

[This interruption by G. P. during a few moments' respite for my father
is an interesting feature of the case. I comment upon it elsewhere (pp.
211-214). -J. H. H.]

Mr. Hyslop and his wife is here, are here [S. points at the is and are]
and ... if I fail grammatically, H., it is owing to the machine. Hear.
Cannot always make it work just right.

(R. H. : Yes, I understand, George.)

[This consciousness of a grammatical mistake and the correction of it are
no less astounding when you are able to watch the conditions under which
they occur, than the readiness with which the change of personality takes
place. Besides, they fit in so nicely with what we know of G. P.'s intellec-
tual tastes and habits.— J. H. H.] [See Proceedings, Vol. XIII., p. 363.]

I . . I wish you would hear me out, James, my son. I am going to
try and keep my thoughts straight. Yes. I will do my best for you.
How is Franks . . (Frank is much better.)

I thought he might come to us for a while, but we have not seen him yet.

[This query about my brother Frank and the expressed fear that he would
not live are very pertinent facts indeed. Father knew before his death of
his condition, and often wrote me that he did not think my brother would
get well. In fact my brother was so ill that it was imposKible for him to be
at father's funeral. It is interesting also to remark in the statement about
his expected death that it means to assert that the expectation had been
harboured since his own death, and there is a pathetic implication, uncon-
scious of course, of a strange universe in the statement, " I have not seen
him yet." — J. H. H.]

Have I overlooked any one, James, I will not . . .

(Yes, you have overlooked one, and then the name of another, my pre-
sent mother, was not given rightly. Yes, you overlooked one of your
children.)

Have I, have I, well I will think about it, and see whether I have for-
gotten them. I know I never forget anything, but when I can tell it all to
you is a different matter. Did you say anything about mother, James ? (Yes,
you did not give rightly the name of my mother on earth now.) but the one
with me. (Yes.)

I was speaking about .... I thought. I intended to bring her
and keep her clear.

(Yes, that was right. I remember my mother on] your side, but there is
one on this side you know.)

442

J. H. Hydop, PhJ).

[PAirr

[There is an interesting misunderstanding here, which was perhaps
caused by my failure to say "stepmother* instead of 44 mother.' * Father
had mentioned to Dr. Hodgson in one of the five sittings held for me sob*
facts that pointed clearly to my stepmother but gave the wrong name, a*
I have already remarked (p. 406). Hence having offered me a chance tn
ask for corrections I here asked to have her name given correctly. The
difficulty came in using the word "mother" at all in this connection, bat
having a view to scientific purposes I would not give any definite hints
regarding the name. — J. H. H.]

[Perturbation in hand.] [Pause.]

E. E. El . . [This has two possibilities, but has no reference to tar
stepmother. — J. H. H.]

I wanted to speak about all of my dear Rec [?] R e b [J] [This has s
very interesting possibility connected with my cousin R. H. McCleflsn.—
J. H.H.]

[When I wrote the previous note I had in mind the possibility that my
cousin was trying to give the name of his aunt Rebecca, as the word begas
with a capital and suggested in the other incidents of the writing that it w*s
intended for a proper name. It might, however, have been intended for the
word relatives. (June 2nd, 1900).— J. H. H.]

I cannot hear it, speak slower.

Well, go out then and come in again with it.

All right.

Yes, but I did not get what he said last. He said something about Luc?
[7] LUCY, but it was not for thee, friend, [meaning not for R. H.]
(S. to R. H. : I know. I know.)
And he said it over and over the last time here.
(Yes, is this my cousin speaking ?)

It is in father's place, and he will not return for a few moments.

The Lucy is not Jessie's sister, friend, [indicating R. H.] (R. H. : Yes
I understand.) [My assistant Miss Lucy Edmunds, has had communkatioos
from her deceased sister Jessie. — R. H.]

but for the other friend, here.

(Yes, I know. But what relation was Lucy to you ?)
Mother said it only a moment ago, and she is on father's side, and he
comes and speaks of her often. We . .
[See Note 54, p. 508.]

(R. H. : Yes, Rector, kindly get George to state explicitly if possible who
this Lucy is. Last time I think you wrote it several times, but when I was
out of the room, perhaps the time before, and our friend here I think did
not read it at the time.)

did not hear it. All right. We will see about it as both Annie and her
father have brought her here several times, and Aunt Nannie will know well.
(I shall ask Aunt Nannie about it.) She is a cousin of thine, friend. Dost
thou not hear ? (Yes. I hear clearly.) But do not remember. (I remember
one cousin Nannie and one Aunt Nannie. )

Yes, she is. Aunt Nannie is in the body and cousin Nannie is in the
spirit. (Yes, your . . . what relation is this cousin Nannie to you ?)
She is my sister. (R. H. : Whose sister ?) LUCYS.

xll]

Appendix 111.

443

[See Note 56, p. 508, and Note 95, p. 536.]
(Well. Well I shall inquire about that.)
It is as they say it, and it must be so.

James, don't you remember any . . . don't (R. H. : "dost thou"?)
you remember her ?

[The original notes on this complex passage, beginning with my cousin's
reference to his relatives, have been expunged, owing to the fact that in this
case the retention of my perplexities about it has no value for the critic. I
may therefore substitute the explanation that later study gives it. I discuss
certain aspects of it in Chapter III. (pp. 231-235). The reference to Lucy
explains itself as the name of my cousin's wife, still living. But Rector's
intimation to me that this Lucy was not Miss Lucy Edmunds is an interesting
piece of intermission. The next message is not so clear. But I suppose it
means that my cousin's mother had tried to give the name Lucy, and that the
allusion to * 4 father's side " means to explain to me that it was father's sister,
whom I never knew, rather than my cousin's stepmother, whom I had known
and who was my mother's sister. My father had been the first to attempt to
give the name Lucy (p. 421). The reference to "aunt Nannie" coupled
with the statement that she was my cousin was perplexing to me, as the
reader can well imagine, until I learned from my cousin's sister Nannie that
during his last illness, in which she had nursed him, he always called her
aunt in deference to the habits of his children. She is still living, as the
statement following indicates. The reference thus becomes clear. Also if
we suppose that the allusion to " cousin Nannie " in saying that she was 44 in
the spirit" is a mistake for "cousin Annie," my sister, but the communi-
cator's cousin, the rest of the passage becomes clear. But the later answer
to my question as to who this 44 cousin Nannie" was will have to be
interpreted from my point of view, in which the 44 aunt Nannie " above, the
communicator's sister, is my cousin. Lucy is her sister-in-law, not her sister.
(June 2nd, 1900).— J. H. H.]

I am your father who is speaking now.

I do not seem to be able to express all I want, but I hope to do so
. . . Yes I do. I was thinking about Sa . . . Sarah . . .
not right Maria . . No . . . There is another named . . named
Mary [S. taps word Mary on sheet with his forefinger.] of whom he speaks
also.

I think * * [undec.] is John's wife.

(S. to R. H. : 44 James' wife") (R. H. to S. : No. 44 John's wife.")
(S. to R. H. : 44 JameV wife.") (R. H. to S. : No. 44 John's.")
[R. H. can't read word after ihiiUc.]
Do not hasten, friend.

The name is not distinct to me, yet the lady is still in the body, and that
is . .

[The possible significance of this group of names is best indicated in the
following facts. Maria is the name of the wife of the John McClellan that
I know. She was a Mitchell, and a Sarah Preston, who was brought up in
the Mitchell family and treated as a member of it, died in 1895 in the town
in which this John McClellan lived, and it might be supposed that she was
present and interested in the reference to this John McClellan. Mary Ann

444

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

was the name of the sister of this John McClellan and was referred to below
(p. 446). His wife, apparently referred to here, is still living, as the passage
seems to indicate. The confusion in the reference appears in the un-
deciphered word which may be a mixture of Sarah and Maria. (June 2nd,
1900).— J. H. H.] [See Note 56, p. 510.]

Give . . give me something, friend . . . better leave it here.

[S. puts spectacle box with contents on table.]

(R. H. to S. : Give those other things. [Putting knife on table.] That's
a favourite thing of his.)

I often hear Hettie playing . . .

[My sister used to play on the organ, but whether she has kept it up
since father's death I do not know. It is probable that the thought is an
automatism of his memory. But he gave the organ expressly to her. —
J. H. H.]

yes, better now.

Speak to him friend, and just let him know that thou art listening. (Yea,
I am listening carefully.)

I would like to tell you of ... I want to .. all I wish to. I do
not believe it possible for me to hear him more distinctly. I was anxious
to speak of the foot which got injured . . injured in the accident, and it
has been on my mind for a long time. I think it is much better now.

(S. to R. H. : Now here's a chance to clear that question up.) (R. H. to
S. : Yes, do so.)

(Whose foot was it ? Whose foot was hurt on the railroad i Whose foot
was hurt ?) F James it was Will's, I think Will's.

[I cannot understand this incident of the injured foot. I never knew of
any such injury to my brother Will. What I have been curious to have
made clear is the relation of the incident to the person to whom I supposed
it referred. As I have already said, my uncle 4 4 Charles " (not correct name)
died recently from just such an accident on the railway, and noticing what I
took to be the confusion about it in the previous reference to it, I asked that
it be cleared up here. But I am more in the dark than ever, because I have
n<» memory of such an accident to my brother. — J. H. H.]

(Well, I shall ask about it.) He got it injured, and so did I. (Yes, I
I nhall nsk Will about it. I did not know it.) Did you know he was on it 1
(No, I itfd not know it.) [See Note 57, p. 511.]

Thil b -\s were so unlike you. I do not think you often asked anything
of thettl, fm never used to do so. (That's right.)

| I l i- i i tVrence to my not asking about my brother is perfectly true. I
cr,mi*|H.n<kal with them directly, and I very seldom, I might almost say
ttever, n«kvd about them in my letters to father. It is especially interesting
to mM, Umm explanation given of my ignorance about the alleged accident to
bttiMf w ill. —J. H. H.]

ftm FfBtwnber (Yes.) what she used to say. [This is true if the 14 she "
vh bo mi y stepmother. ^J. H. H.]

lbs were like James . . . like . . they were like James I
not have anything to think about but [See Note 58, p. 512]
1 ILL ii. [" Helen " is possibly Rector's partial hearing of Henrietta
it is meaningless. Note remark that follows.— J. H. H.]

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix III

445

I am really too weak to think more for you, James, and they seem not to
hear me so well. Are you tired, James ? (No, say all you wish to say.) But
do you think they hear me ? I always told you to be just, and I want you to
be so with me.

[The fact was that I was tired enough, and I feared confession would stdj>
the sitting, and hence not being too tired to wait for more results, I said no
to the question, and the answer to my statement is a suspicion of my truth-
fulness. The answer is characteristic of him, as he knew I would endure
much without complaint when he was living. — J. H. H.]

(Yes, father, I shall, but please free your mind. I shall be patient.
Yew, father, free your mind, and I shall be patient.)

I want to tell you all . . Samuel Cooper. You remember you asked me
what I knew of him. Did you think I was no longer friend of his ? I had
several letters (S. : 44 little") (R. H. : 44 letters") (That's right.) which
he wrote to me concerning our difference of opinion, and I think they were
with you. Have you got them ?

(I shall look them up. Do you remember any other differences with
him T) [I have commented on this in report of earlier sittings. See p. 397
and Notes 29, p. 410, and 39, p. 499.— J. H. H.]

I think I do on the subject of this very question, this . . religious
views . . his religious views.

(S. to R. H. : That's all out of the way.)

and the . . strange . . children . . and the children, I will
think it over and tell you more about them.

I am confused, James, and I cannot tell you what I wish, and I will try
again. I am going now. What is the use to try and tell you what . . .
cannot speak . . .

Friend, we will be obliged [obgiled] to let him . . him go for a while
and think over the memories.

(R. H. : Yes, there is little time left also.) (Yes, that is right.)

And when he returns he will remember better than he does now.

Clarke is here again. [This seems to be the old attempt at my uncle
again. — J. H. H.]

(Yes. I shall be glad to hear from you. Yes. I shall be glad to hear
from you.) Do you know me. (Yes. I know you and would be glad to
have you say what you can.)

Do you remember James ? [This is correct for my uncle's first name. —

(Yes. I remember James and would be glad to have the rest.) And it is
Clarke. (S. to R. H. : That's not right, you see. Not right.) [tapping
word with forefinger.]

both are here . . . are speaking to you . . (And is it James that speaks
to me ?) [R. H. did not hear all this, and said 44 Say that again." Repeated.]
Yes, and . . Yes there were two James and do you remember an
uncle? (Yes 1 remember, and Uncle James, — what . . ) Well it is he.
(Which uncle James ?)

H. . . . James Mc. [Correct. — J. H. H.] (Yes, that is right.) and
a cousin John. (R. H. : Rector, how's the light ?) Don't you remember us
both ? (I am not sure of cousin John.) [p. 471.]

J. H. H ]

446

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Well, I will tell you more about myself later, and we will perhaps U D
each other . . my sister Anne is here with . . yes [?] Anne . .
going.

[There are some things in this passage that are quite correct and pertinent.
The statement that there were two Jameses is perfectly correct. One is the
James that is referred to here as Clarke, and the other the uncle named
James McClellan. But the cousin John I cannot make out. This ' 'sister
Ann " also puzzles me very much : that is, it has no meaning whatsoever.
But my uncle James McClellan died in 1876 while I was at college.—
J. H. H.] [See Note 59, p. 513.]

All are going, as it is failing us.

[Sudden jerk of hand. Then quiet.]

It is failing us.

There are many, and much to do.

Friend, go forth and make no haste. (R. H. : No.) Keep in the highest
and God bless thee evermore. We rest the light and return to thee. Amen.
+ {R} Farewell.

[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]
[Almost inarticulate whispers at first.]

Tell Hyslop I had to take him away. [Apparently much repetition of
above sentence before it was distinct.]

That's my prayer. Had to take him away. I want to stay. I want to
take the bonnet off. I want to go out. (R. H. : And stay out I)

[Looking amazedly at R. H.] Well, I thought you turned into an ape.
(R. H. : You did ?)

0 Mr. Hodgson, my fingers got all numb.

Did yon hear my head when it snapped i

Introduction.

The first indications of the approaching trance which I noticed to-
day were a whispering movement of the lips and then a marked stare.
fVeaently 1 noticed the tendency to arrest in her cough, which seemed
t inky to come on at first only as an incident of the coming trance, as
Mfk. P. showed no traces of a cough in the normal state. In a few
moment* T remarked the open mouth, which soon began to appear
drawn, and then to mutter something quite inaudibly. This was soon
followed by short quick breathing which lasted for only a minute or so
vlion the head fell on the pillow as usual. There were then various
i It-mgea in the breathing which represented interruptions between short
more prolonged breathing until it lapsed into the breathing
which resembled a snore just enough to suggest it but not
This became a little calmer as the writing began, though
glerwardfl that with change of control there was some
heavier breathing for a moment. — J. H. H.

qukk and mo

gf the hea

I :

Digitized by

Google

XJJ.]

Appendix III.

447

Comments.

There was an interesting feature in this sitting which apparently
shows a knowledge of the confusion that I have been unable to dis-
entangle in my notes of the previous sitting. The McClellan family
seems to have been shut out from personal communications, and I was
left with my father who was superseded by my brother Charles and
sister Annie when he left the machine. The sitting as a whole on this
occasion is much clearer and less confused than the others. But the
most interesting feature of it is the manifest attempt to avoid the
confusion of the day before, the trance personalities actually stating
their own knowledge of it and determination to prevent it. The
whole modus operandi of the sitting showed the effect of this resolu-
tion.— J. H. H.

Record of Sitting. J une 1st, 1899.

Prof. J. H. H. andR. H.

[Rector writes.]
HAIL (R. H. : Hail. I . . .)
Welcome friend, all hail thee.

(R. H. : I have some . . I have some inquiries to make about future
sittings that it might be well to settle now.)

The light is clearer this day, and whilst it doth burn brightest . .
brightest speak thy thoughts to Him.

(R. H. : Next time Mr. D. is coming. Next week the first four days
after the Sabbath are for our friend Hyslop here.) [Assent.]

(R. H. : I have just received an earnest request from Mrs. Z. to have a

sitting for her. She sends her influences and 's, and wishes me to bring

other matters of her and her family to you. If you think it wise, I thought
perhaps the day before the Sabbath might be given to this.)

We will meet thee on that day for her, and we will not fail her. + .
(R. H. : Amen.)

(Then Mrs. A. wishes the light to go to her for the sixth after coming,
[hand moves as if to hear better] for the sixth after coming Sabbath, and
spend the night with her and return here on the Sabbath to be ready for the
next day not yet settled. Mrs. A. has changed her home, and it is further
away.)

Is it where we took the light when thou wert absent, friend ?
(R. H. : Probably it was, but I am not sure.)
W . . .

(R. H. : It is, I believe, near other friends of the light named Y .)

We will take the light on the sixth, but not on the Sabbath, and to no
one will we return on that day, as we have heretofore stated. Stated. U D.
(R. H. : Yes. I understand.)

We have our work as thou hast thine. (R. H. : Yes, I understand. The
light can sit on the sixth, but not on the Sabbath, and can return home on
the Sabbath.) [Cross in air.] Yes, and this only. To no one will we return
on the Sabbath. (R. H. : Good.)

Digitized by

448

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

(R. H. : Then . . . ) [Hand talks much with Sp.]

(R. H. : Then Mrs. C. is apparently much anxious to know when she can
see you next. There would be the fifth after next Sabbath not yet filled.)

We feel that we have given so much help to Mrs. D. that it will not be
necessary for us to meet either Mrs. or Mr. D. after the next time. Con-
sequently if any inquiries are made from there kindly say it will not be
necessary for a time. U D.

(R. H. : Yes. I understand.)

And we will meet her on the fifth after coming Sabbath.

But, dear friend, we do not wish any mortal to interfere with [Hand
pointed to Sp.] the spirit named Hyslop . . named . . (R. H. : No,
indeed.)

[This is a curious allusion perfectly consistent with the original plan of
the sittings arranged by the trance personalities. — J. H. H.]

and until he is quite clear and conscious it would be better to exclude all
inquiries + .

(R. H. : Yes. Amen. Any further arrangements can be left till the day
before the coming Sabbath.)
Yes, and better so.

[Hand moves towards S. as if to ask whether he had anything to say.]
(R. H. to S. : Say something.) (I am glad to be here this day.)

HAIL. And to thee we return this day and no further arrangements
will be necessary at present, but rest thy body well until we return to thee
after coming Sabbath.

And we wish to say that we were somewhat confused as [at ?] the closing
of the last meeting owing to the light failing us. [This is a very interesting
and true statement to be volunteered. — J. H. H.]

We have also various friends of thine who are present, and at times more
or less confuse us. Thy dear father is a very active and arduous [endless ?]
[S. touches R. H., and indicates by pointing that he could not decipher
arduous.] worker . . . indefatigable worker [This describes father
perfectly. He always worked hard at anything he attempted. — J. H. H.]
and since . . . ever since he has become conscious of thy desires he hath
returned almost daily with more or less friends here. U D.

(Yes, I U D. Yes, I U D.)

Well, James, it is time for me to return. Do you hear Him . . . (R. H.
to S. : That's Imperator.) whispering to me and telling me how to reach
you clearly ? I long to remember more of my earthly experiences, and if I
can I will leave nothing unspoken. More or less sad was my coming here, a
condition from which [written "condition whi," then from inserted above
between condition and whi, then th added to whi,] (S. to R. H. : Mark the
completion of that which.) I am slowly recovering.

[This stopping in the middle uf the word u which ,h t<* insert the " from"
Above the line, and then coming buck to the right place itnd completing the
** which " without trying to rewrite it, considering that Mrs. P. was not only
unconscious, but had her head turned sway, was a wonderfully interesting
performance.- -J. H. H.]

I in mot . . inte tided [the * of meant not com pie bed, then intended
Ruperposed on meant] I intended to refer bo uncle John . . U . .

XLI.]

Appendix III.

449

but I was somewhat dazed, James. Do you U D me. (Yes. Yes, I UD.)
I heard that very well. I wanted to refer to this for the purpose of clearing
matters up.

(Yes, I am glad to have uncle John mentioned.)

and there is another thing to which I would refer, and that is the
university.

(Yes, I UD, but go on.)

It was there, James, that I had you go, and the others I will refer to
soon.

[I had supposed at the time of the sitting, as the note then made and now
deleted indicated, that this " uncle John" was a confused reference to the
John McOlellan whom I had known, and who was the treasurer of the
university to which father had sent me for my education. But it is not
certain that this John McClellan was intended by the reference, especially
as it is apparent that the communicator is governed by association in
referring to the incident of sending me to the university as "another thing."
(June 2nd, 1900. }-J. H. H.] [Cf. Footnote, p. 472.]

I am all right while + is near me, and my memory comes back to me
clearer. I have given mention as you doubtless understand, to several
persons, places, etc., which are not quite clear, and before I go on, if you
will refer to those which perplex you most I will do my best to correct them
and perhaps I can recall some of them myself. I intended to refer to the
McLellen family one by one and keep all of their names quite [page turned
with the words of R. H. "One moment please." Hand listens to R. H.]
(R. H. : All right.) (S. : All right.) clear, but at times my head bothers
me, and I have to return to regain myself. Do you remember our old home
in the little town of C. ? [ ?]

(R. H. : C, is that?)

YeSy and where I with Aunt Nannie lived after your mother [yonr inserted
above, between after and mother, after mother was written.] left us and we
brought you up.

[This is an interesting passage beginning with the reference to " our old
home." This very expression is consistent with the fact of his removal to
another State, alluded to as "out West" in earlier sittings. The letter C is
not correct for the name of the town possibly meant. The name of the
town was Xenia, pronounced "Ze-nia,"and we may suppose that Rector
interpreted the sound Z as the pronunciation of C (see), assuming, as there
is evidence to believe, that phonetic analogies are admissible in this
problem. Father did not actually live " in " this town. My aunt Nannie
did. Our house was a few miles from it, but Xenia was our regular post-
office and was always referred to as our birth-place, etc. The statement
that my aunt Nannie lived with us, at this " old home" after my mother's
death, is every word of it true, and the time relations are perfectly accurate.
(June 2nd, 1900.)— J. H. H.]

I am in no way confused, but my mind is clear and I am very close [not
read at once] to you and an . . close ... I do not think I have ever
been so clear before.

He [Imperator] is assisting me in every way, keeping • . assisting
. . all quiet, and the names of your mother's family are ail • • •

450

J. U. Hy»l»p, Ph.D.

[part

mother's [the previous mother's had been read as brother s] . . known
to me.

I intended to clear up about James and John McLellen before I left.

Speak, James, if you . . (R. H. to S. : Now's your chance.) (Yes,
father, I hear clearly and remember the old home and Aunt Nannie bringing
us up.)

And the special . . special . . care I had with one of the boys.
It is all right in my mind now. I only refer to it that you may know it is I
your father, and no one else who is speaking, and . . . (Yes.)

[This is a very pertinent allusion, especially the italicising of the word
4 * care." It is of course indefinite, but every member of the family would
recognise the reference very quickly. The facts are too personal to be
narrated here, because of their unpleasantness. — J. H. H.]

I also wanted Clarke for a mere recollection, not because I had any
special interest otherwise. [Name not right. Cf. pp. 422, 431. — J. H. H.]

(Yes. Yes, I know, and . . did he have anything to do with yonr
sister ?)

Oh yes, only by marriage. [Correct relation. — J. H. H.]
(Yes, that, that is right, and is he on this side or not ?)
Yes, he is and has been for some time. (R. H. to S. : That's not clear.)
I often see him. [The implication is correct. — J. H. H.]
(Yes. Do you mean that he is on your side ?) He is here. [Correct-
J. H. H.]

(Yes. What brought him there ? What brought him to your side ?)

Why do you not remember of his coming here suddenly, James?
(Yes.) [Correct about his sudden death. — J. H. H.]

It was pneumonia. [Not correct. But it would be true of the uncle
James McClelkn just previously mentioned. — J. H. H.]

i V- s. I remember his sudden coming, but I wanted to see if something
•Hit about him licfore was what you meant.)

Wbiit it waK, due to it, and if I mistake not you remember it very well.

(Xvn. T i < i ii timber it, but do not worry about it now. It will come
iigavn. Yon can go on.)

1 only was disturbed because of the accident that I could not make clear,
and riiai ijiM mipted me somewhat because he had & fever, and yet we are
not suffering with anything, don't think that, James, will you ?

{No, I shall not, it is all right.)

[The incidents in this reference confirm my interpretation of the real
"ru nning of the name Clarke so frequently mentioned before. The mistake
of pueuniuriia is «ry singular, and it is interesting to see that there seems to
he Home consciousness of the confusion involved in it. Also there seems to be
a half reproach administered to me for wanting him to tell me what I could
iposed to know already, as if it were only the purpose of my experi-
to deal with his own memories ; if not reproach there is evident
If tli. word accident could be taken for all that it suggests in con*
with both my uncle's sudden death and the statements made about it
is sittings, it would have special significance.

fctomeut that brother Charles had a fever is correct, as the notes to
-d third sittings, December 23rd and 25th, 1898, quite clearly

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

AirpeTidix III.

451

show. The reference to his interruption is curious. It appears as if they
thought I was asking for the illness with which my brother Charles died, as
mentioned in previous notes. — J. H. H.J [See Note 60, p. 513.]

and .... Nanie will feel better to know this. She was one of
the best of sisters. [Cf. p. 343.]

[I see no pertinence or meaning to this allusion to 44 sister Nannie." In
this connection the reference should have been to another sister, namely,
Eliza, mentioned at earlier sittings (pp. 343, 449). The description of
4k Nanie" as the best of sisters is exactly father's opinion of both of them.
— J. H. H ]

(Yes. Yes. I shall tell her. You re . . . have you seen any one
that Aunt Nannie is interested in ?)

Yes, I intend telling you about him before I get through, James. (Yes,
all right. Go on and free your mind and I shall not interrupt you.)

but I like to hear you speak. I see the . .

Excuse me a moment ... I will return in a moment.

4- takes him away for a moment. Will return again soon. I see you
James, I am your sister Annie . . .

[The appearance of my sister Annie was accompanied by a marked
change in the handwriting and much more rapid execution. There was no
hesitation and it seemed as if she had no difficulty in thinking coherently.
When my father returned, the writing changed back to the more deliberate
style and less distinct character in respect of the letters. — J. H. H.]

(I . . . ) and I am very glad to meet you here. Pa is better now.

[4* Pa " was always the way that we children addressed or spoke of father,
until a late date when I began to call him 44 father." I have not called him
44 Pa " for twenty-two years. I stopped it about the time I left college, but
the others still continued it for a long time. But my sister Annie in life
never used any other expression but 44 Pa." — J. H. H.]

(Yes. I am very glad to see you.)

Do you remember when I came to this life, James ? (Yes, I remember
very well.) And did you know I did not see you / (Yes. I think so.)

[This last statement about not seeing me, and my answer, are not strictly
true, but the former is near enough to the truth for me to give tliis answer in
order not to introduce any confusion into the writing, as I thought a
negative answer might do. Some idea of how near the truth it is will be
observed when I say that I have but one distinct recollection of her. I
remember on the evening of my brother Charles' funeral, he having died
twelve days before her, that as we sat down at the table to supper, Anna was
standing between the table and the door, and mother said something to her,
I think, about coming to supper. She was perfectly well apparently at the
time, none of us having yet shown any symptoms of the scarlet fever. But
she replied to mother in a clear innocent tone, 44 1 am going to get sick and
die." The impression that the statement made on mother, with the
aire and indefinable feelings which the death of my brother had excited in
roe, stamped the incident indelibly on my memory. I was eleven years old
at the time. My sister was only four, I think, or thereabouts. I have
refused to look up the fact in order not to expose any more than is possible
to the telepathic theory. But if I cannot now recall anything more than the

452

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[PARI

above incident about her, though I was eleven years old when she died, ii
ought not to be wondered that she, being only four when she died, sh«»ol<j
say that she did not see me. — J. H. H.] [If we could take the liberty to cut*
jecture that my sister did not see me when she was dying, since her death *i
a fact was very gradual, we might obtain a meaning that would satisfy anothei
possibility. But I am very doubtful about the rights of such an interpret*
tion (June 2nd, 1900).— J. H. H.]

But I thought of you a great deal and I am thinking now of Corrn [?] < ' I
lora [?] what father calls [calles] her . . not quite right . . . C 1 1
. . C or o [?]. [This is apparently an attempt to give the name of mj
aunt Cornelia (June 2nd, 1900. — J. H. H.]

[See Note 61, p. 514.]

You cannot help me, can you, I mean mother.

[Apparently the words, " You cannot help me, can you," were addressed U
her mother.]

Jennie and L V C y . [See Note 62, p. 514.]

(I remember Lucy, but not Jennie. I think there is a Jennie, but wbd
Lucy is this ?)

She is on my mind at this moment, and I want to send a message to her
(Very well, send.)

Do you remember grandmother ? (Yes, I remember her well.)

L U Cy is there and I am just thinking of her, father knows about b<j
better than I do.

Yes, I have waited all these years to find you, and I helped father whd
he came here. I feel it because I do not remember more for you, James, hi
you have changed also. [Interesting statement like one made before (p. 331|
— J. H. H.] I had a sister-in-law, so I am trying to think of her. What i* i
you call her, James, tell ; no you better not, I will tell you pretty soon .

very soon. I am sorry I cannot say more, but I hope to some day. [See N^l

62, p. 514.]

What is meant by Peter ? [No meaning. — J. H. H.]
Was it the dog George had ( (I do not remember. I do not rememhd
this.) Can't you ask him ? (Yes, I shall ask him about it.) [See Nod

63, p. 515.]

[Hand indicates fresh arrival.]
Yes, I am back again now, I heard you say it was strange I could
tell you more about Cooper. What did you mean by that ?

(I wanted to know if you remembered anything about the dogs killing sheep.)
[Excitement in hand.]

[This excitement so evident in the hand was very interesting, especiallj
when taken in connection with the sudden recollection of what I referred toj
the wonder at my question and the statement that the communicator had
forgotten it.^J, H. H.]

Oh, I should think I did, yea I do very well, but I have forgotten all abod
it, this was what we had the discussion about [Correct. — J. H. H.] and I ma<k
it unpleas , t for him , , [Perfectly correct, except that the blam<
Wh-is not on father's port. — J. H> H.] yes, very well, James, but just whal
you asked me this for I could not quite make out, as he was no relation <*i

mme.^[Correct.^J, H, EL]

Digitized by

XLI.]

Ajypendix III.

453

I remember it all very well, and if I could have recalled what you were
getting at I would have tried to tell you, but I see him seldom, and I referred
to him only because you asked me of him . . . about him.

(Yes. All right, father, I wanted it for my scientific purpose.)

Oh, yes. Why did you not just remind me of it ? Well I will work for
you, and to remind you of other things quite as good. But don't hurry me,
and in time I can talk to you just as I used to.

[This whole passage regarding the incident I had recalled and the mental
status indicated by the reply, though not containing evidential matter that
must impress the reader without elaborate explanation, is perhaps as impor-
tant an anything in my sittings. Let me first narrate the facts and then come
to my purpose in suggesting it, with the comments that are necessary.

I remember that one winter night some dog or dogs killed a number of
our sheep, and the next morning we tried to track the dogs through the
snow to their homes. I took one track in one direction, and father followed
another in a different direction. But it happened that I was thrown off the
fresh trail by an older one in the snow, I being too young and ignorant to
distinguish carefully, and failed to remark that the dog I had been set to
trace had turned off to his home at a certain point, the dog being Samuel
Cooper's. I followed the old trail to another neighbour's. But when father
made the search after me, he found my mistake, and as Mr. Cooper had seen
me following the trail to another neighbour the fact prevented father from
throwing the blame unmistakably on the dog evidently at fault. Hence
nothing could be done, I receiving some reproach for my carelessness. But
later in the spring the dogs attacked the sheep a second time. What
followed this event I shall not describe at present, but add to the account if
anything further is said about the matter. It will suffice to say at present
that the events that immediately followed were caused by the dissension be-
tween the two, they being immediate neighbours. (These incidents which
I omit for personal reasons, and which were of a nature to impress my
memory indelibly were far more interesting than those that I have mentioned,
to say nothing of the clearness with which they stand out in my memory.)
Knowing how innocent my father was in the case, and how much he felt any
disagreement with his neighbours, it occurred to me that I might test his
personal identity by simply asking a question about Samuel Cooper, which I
sent to Dr. Hodgson for one of his sittings. The confused and confusing
result has already been remarked. This was made "worse confounded"
by the mention of John in connection with his name at the first of the
present series of sittings, May 29th, when I came later to suspect that this
was not the John Cooper for whom I thought it intended at the time.
Later, however, I came to suspect that this John possibly referred to another
person, and all the allusions made to Mr. Cooper took on an entirely new
possibility and import. I suspected this at the sitting previous to the present
one, and the statement that he, Samuel Cooper, 44 was no relation of mine "
supports this suspicion. It seems to imply that father expected me to ask
about my relatives only. But it is an interesting fact to see that he correctly
states that Samuel Cooper is not a relative of his, and the statement occurs
in an interesting connection, though it is equally true of the Cooper
that he evidently had in mind all along. The whole passage is a fine

454

J. H. Hydvp, Ph.D.

[part

vraitembtanct of reality in conversation and thinking. The recognition, the
correction, the wonder indicated regarding my question, and the final
appreciation of my object are incidents in a unity of consciousness that is
beyond all simple explanation short of charity for the spiritistic theory,
to say nothing of the two correct incidents in it, that about the discussion
and the denial of relationship with the person named. The reader may reflect
on this incident when applying telepathy. — J. H. H.]

Do you remember where George used to go, and it did not please me very
well t

(Yes, I remember. I remember it, and shall be glad to have you say all
you wish about it.)

You see the hours I spent over him and with him, the advice I gave hini,
and very little good at times.

[This passage is too indefinite for evidential purposes, but it expresses
exactly my father's thought and actions in regard to a certain event, which,
though not reflecting on my brother unfavourably, was connected with hi*
welfare in a way that my brother may not have appreciated at the time.—
J. H. H.]

I remember F R ank, and I also recall the time he caught the fish. Do you
remember that Sunday ? [I know nothing of this.— J. H. H.] (No, I do not
remember it. But T think Frank will remember it.) Yes I refer to him as
he knew about it and the trouble it gave me. (Yes, I shall write to Frank
alM>ut it.) Can't you see him i Oh I see . . . you will be going s<a>il
[See Note 64, p. 516.]

(Yes, that is right, that is right.)

Yes. Well, wait and ask him if . . as it will be better to ask .
as, as, it will be better to ask him . . and the . . .
(R. H. : Rather than write I) [Assent.]
Mr. Hyslop says so.
(Yes, I will talk to him about it. )

And there was a place where he used to go and spend evenings, and b"th
his aunt and myself did our best to keep him out of temptation.
(Yes. I am glad to hear that. You mean Frank I think i)
[I know nothing of this incident. I left home before Frank "was old
enough to make social calls. — J. H. H.]

Yph, 1 iff mi mi Frank, but do you remember anything about War (le*.
I do. ()<• nn<) "rid the mental anxiety I passed through at that time (Ye*
I C6m*!uher it WJT well indeed.) and . . and my leg / I am getting tired
Junius, will ivsi i\ moment and return.

| Thin r&fortnCti to the 44 war," to the mental anxiety at that time, andM
hh k% ti profoundly interesting. Father was very strongly opposed M
aluvvry Mid pawned through a period of intense mental anxiety and fears f«>i
)uu ocnmtry M (he time. He would probably have volunteered for the
had nut fchfl injury to his leg which I have described in a previous
dim unfit for a soldier. But near the close of the war, when
1 1 perform » slight service as a soldier without risk to his health, h<
id in the prevention of Morgan's raid in Ohio. This service did n»*
iy long marching, but only some militia duties. — J. H. H.]
ii wry heavy atmosphere to be in.

Digitized by G00gle

XLI.]

Appendix III.

455

What about Aunt LUCY? (Aunt Lucy who ?)

Charles is speaking this, and he came here quite young . . young.
She was related to the other mother, wasn't she ?

(Do you mean the mother on this side ?) Yes, I do. (Well, can
you tell what her other name is ?) John can as he knows her very
well. Ask him when he gets here, if that is you, James. (V ery well. That
is all right.)

And what happened to the chimney after I left.

Do you not remember ? (Yes. I remember it.) And wasn't it taken
down ? (Yes, I think so.)

I heard father talking about it to mother some time ago ... I mean
the chimney, James. (Yes. Yes. I remember it very well.)

Well, all right, I am not worrying about it, only I remember how cold it
was before I left.

Going out now.

[We had no aunt Lucy, though at the time of the sitting I thought we had
a second cousin by this name. I can only suppose that my brother Charles
mistook the relationship when trying to give the name of Lucy McClellan, in
reality his cousin by marriage. The reference to her being related to
** the other mother," if it applies to my stepmother, is false, but it may be a
conjecture of Rector's, as he apparently makes the previous statement. The
statement that John knows her very well is un verifiable, and indeed extremely
dubious, though I admit it possible. (June 2nd, 1900.). — J. H. H.]

[The reference to the chimney is interesting, though I could hardly treat
it as evidential if it came from my brother Charles alone, because he died
many years before the incident occurred. But it is peculiarly pertinent to
have it come thus indirectly from father and to have my mother connected
with it in this way, as it appears to be a story told her for information. Now
the facts are these. When we built our house in 1860 or 1861, the chimney
on the kitchen was not high enough to prevent the interference of the winds,
coining against the main part of the house or over it, with the draught in it
necessary to support the fire in the cooking stove. The consequence was
that, after trial, it had to be built up to reach above the second storey of
the house, and was a solitary chimney, perhaps twenty or twenty-five feet
above the roof of the kitchen. It did not give a very artistic appearance to
the house, but had to be endured. About 1884 a cyclone overthrew it, and
it was rebuilt. The reader can determine the pertinence of the refer-
ence, and more especially the form which it takes as having been told
mother by father. She died long before the accident to the chimney. Are
we to suppose a consultation between them for something peculiar and
specially evidential to tell me ?

The allusion to the cold weather before he left is pertinent, as a note in
my first sitting shows. (Of. p. 310.) My brother died in the winter when
the snow was on the ground. — J. H. H.] [See Note 65, p. 517.]

Yes my son, all the medicine in the material world could not have kept
me in it, as it was time for me to come. Go home, James, and see them all,
and do not miss me, but try and feel if you can that I am somewhere near
you.

(Yes, father, I shall feel that you are near.)

456

J. H. Hyflop, PhJ).

And God keep you, as He always has, one of the best of sons. I can
now speak what I could not often say when I was with you there, but y«x
never gave ine much anxiety.

[Father did feel much concern for me during the " Sturm und Drang "
period of my religious doubts, but it is probably true in every other respect
that he had little anxiety about me. — J. H. H.]

I seem to go back to the old days more than anything else. Don't ay
you wonder at this, that, and the other, but wait, be patient — all all wul be
clear to you some day. If I fail in my memory, do not say well if that is
father he must have forgotten a great deal. I really forget nothing, bos I
find it not easy to tell it all to you. I feel as though I should choke at times
and I fail to express my thoughts, but if fragmentary try and think the beat
of them, will you i

(Yes. I shall try and think the best of them.)

From day to day I will grow stronger while speaking, and then you wul
know me as I am. (Yes, father, I think so. You have done very well
indeed to-day.)

I must leave you soon they say, so accept my little helps and
remember me as your * * [undec.] father R. H. Hyslop [?] [Tbe
last few words much cramped and letters somewhat written over one another.
— R. EL]

Gone. Adieu [ t ]

[Father had no middle initial. His name was simply R. Hyslop, or
Robert Hyslop, when written in full. His name had already been given m
full at the sitting of December 27th. I suppose the intention here was to
give only the initials R. H., and that finally the H. was expanded into
Hyslop. — J. H. H.] [He used to sign his letters to me, 44 your affectionate
Pa," not " father." I do not know whether the undeciphered words are an
attempt to write the first two words of this phrase or not. (May 4th, 1901. )
— J. H. H.]

Speak, friend, and I will take any message to him.

(Yes, tell father he has done so well to-day, and I shall be glad to hear
from him again. J. was very glad to see his name written here.) Amen.
Friend, come to us and fear not. (R. H. : Amen.)
Now, may the grace of God rest on thee. (R. H. : Amen.)
Farewell. + Imperator {R}

[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]

[Almost inarticulate, as yesterday. Mrs. P.'s tongue seemed almost
immobile.]

Hodgson [ ? ] . . . . Hyslop to remain [1] . . . Yes, I . .
I'm not dead . . . Tell James [ ?] I'm not dead.
I don't know that * * [ ?]

There's Imperator and Rector, and a man that's got a scar on his face.
I don't want to go. Oh oo — oo ? Awful dark after I left. Who's that little
short man ? Who's that little old gentleman that whispers ?

[The last sentence describes the condition of father's voice during the last
three years of his life. Paralysis of the larynx made it impossible for him to
speak above a whisper. (December 10th, 1899). — J. H. H.]

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix II L

457

[Extract from sitting of June 3rd, 1899.]
[Rector writing. Sitter, R. H.]

June 3rd, 1899.

* * * We will meet Hyslop on the first four days after coming

Sabbath, and Mrs. C. on the fifth, take the light to Mrs. on the sixth.

Sabbath we return not. First after Sabbath we have to give to some worthy
mortal. Speak.

(You wish to cease with Hyslop after the next four ?)

We would like to continue until his friends on our side are quite clear,
but we would prefer to discontinue until after we have restored the light
somewhat, as we prefer the best conditions for his friends, who are worthy
and intelligent spirits, but who cannot do their best under the present
conditions. Yet we are helping them greatly, and will see that they do the
best that is possible at this time. The reason of his father's being so clear
at first was due in chief to the clearness of the light. U D. (Yes.)

Consequently we will cease after four meetings, and return for greater
work later. * * *

[Mrs. Piper had averaged about twenty sittings a month for the previous
seven months. — R. H.]

[Among the utterances of Mrs. Piper's "subliminal" as she was coming
out of trance were: "Say to Hyslop all is well." * * * "Stainton
Moses helping Hyslop."] [Cf p. 340.]

Introduction.

The interesting feature of the approaching trance to-day which
came with the usual symptoms that I have previously described, was
the fact that it came on while Mrs. Piper was talking to Dr. Hodgson
about a request from a certain person to have a sitting. She talked
about it for some time and gradually ceased this as Dr. Hodgson was
talking, and began to show the movements of the hand and eyes which
indicate the trance. As she was becoming entranced, and while staring
into space she nodded her head several times as if assenting to some-
thing, and soon her head fell on the pillow.1 — J. H. H.

June 5th, 1899.

Record of Sitting, J une bth, 1899.

Prof. J. H. Hyslop and R. H.
[Rector writes.]

HAIL (R. H. : Hail.)

Friends of earth, we are pleased to meet thee on this day as it is God's
will, and may peace be with thee throughout and His blessings on thee + R.
All is as we would have it and ice will watch ocer all.
(We welcome thee this day. ) Amen.

1 A» there were no special reasons for taking notes on the symptoms of the trance
at the time, the present introductory note and those of the three following sittings
were written out from memory after returning to the office on the same day, as the
dates show.— J. H. H.

Digitized by

458

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

One word to thee and we will go on. (R. H. : Yes.)
(R. H. to S. : I think they mean a word to me.)

The time to which we have given mention for Mth. M. must be kept by
her and . . as it is . . as it is most imperative.

[Special days had been previously appointed for sittings for Mrs. M.
(See Proceedings 8. P. R., Vol. XIII., pp. 341-349, and also this Report,
p. 299), and I was not aware that she desired any change, but a special
delivery letter reached me immediately after the sitting, requesting an
alteration of the time. Her request was apparently answered here by
anticipation. Professor Hyslop was present when the letter came, and I
showed it to hiin, and we intended to preserve it carefully, but it was pre-
sumably mislaid, and has not yet been found. (May 8th, 1901.) R.H.]

[I saw and read the above mentioned letter at the time. (May 9th, 1901.)
-J. H. H.]

(R. H : Very good. I understand.)

Say this and fail not. + R. (R. H. : Yes. I will notify her at once.)
The mother is in our charge and will be most judiciously cared for. Good
day.

(R. H. : Good day.) F I H M. [Fragmentary incomplete attempt at
initials of Mr. M.]

Well, James [agitation in hand.] J [and scrawl] (R. H. to S. : Say
something.) (Yes, mother, good morning. Be calm and go on.) [Hand
rests on S.'s hand for two or three moments.]

I am very pleased to meet you here, my dear little son, after all the
year* that kve panned since I left you a little boy. [Correct allusion. —
J, H* FL] I rumemlrer it so well and I have watched over you many a day
since then.

My thoughts are clearing daily and as I look back it helps me greatly
, , . do you re member when Annie came to me . . to me, an . .
and told nie you were here. If you can recall this you will know the first, of
my rt'tuvniti^ lu-iv to find you . . [not all read.] . . know the . .
you will know it wa* the first . . . first.

and as k)h* rivalled you to my mind I have unceasingly sought to find you.
fK, H. Ui S, ; H"W did you interpret that ?)
It wax vour swtvv Annie and not your father who first saw you.
[TW <>nl) mim t that can attach to this statement is that it seems to
tatncjdc with the fact that my sister Annie's name was the first relevant one
given at my firet Hitting (December 23rd, 1898). I cannot use it as evidence,
nor can I innist that the interpretation is even a probable one, but only that
there is a coincident at least. —J. H. H.]

I an i going To till you something you have forgotten after I become
I b«ot«&»4l**r . . when . . M. A. H. . . when (R. H. :
1 heoonw dwr.") (Yes, mother, I shall be glad to hear it.)
Mwn foohttii wolU James i (Yes. I feel very well indeed.) No
\ I have no headache.)

, i n\ Kon I was fifteen. When I was between ten and four-
fcfehi 1 * wry often had severe headaches, and my mother always
i for tiwm. The incident is precisely such as my mother would

Digitized by

Google

XLI.]

Appendix III

459

Glad I am to hear this because the good saints here have been praying for
you of late. R.

It is I your father who is speaking. Cannot you hear me, James ?

(Yes, father, I hear. I am glad to see you this morning.)

I am very glad also. Now let me tell you one thing more and that is
about the little errors which I may make when speaking with you. I think
many things all at once and when I try to give mention to them I fail some-
what. Do you remember the school teacher I referred to a few days ago ?

(Yes, I remember and shall be glad to have you go on.)

He has been more anxious to tell you what I had on my mind concerning
him.

[This possibly refers to the incident told to Dr. Hodgson (sitting of
February 22nd). It is strange to see the statement that it was only a few
days ago. But the distinction in time coincides with what appears to be the
habit of alleged communicators in the Piper case. The statement here im-
plying that this teacher is not living is equivocal. I cannot tell whether it
comes from Rector or father. The sudden disappearance of father and
appearance of my uncle makes it probable, perhaps, that it is Rector's state-
ment regarding father's intention to free his mind regarding this teacher. I
do not remember the teacher's name, and do not know whether he is living
or not. — J. H. H.]

Here is Clarke. (Good morning, uncle, I shall be glad to hear from you.)

Give my love to N.

[Hand tightens in excitement, and pencil is nearly forced out from
fingers. R. H. lays his hand gently over it.]

Give . . . [Sp. — probably Imperator — enjoins apparently, and hand
becomes quiet and bows.]

Give my love to Nan.

[The hesitation after * 4 Nan " was written was an interesting fact. It would
appear to have been more natural for my uncle to mention his widow Eliza.
There appeared to be in this hesitation a consciousness of a mistake, if the
pause can be so interpreted. But as he had mentioned his wife Eliza before
more than once it may seem a reasonable deviation here to refer to his sister-
in-law, whose name is Nannie, the aunt Nannie of this record. — J. H. H.]
[Note 95, p. 536.]

And let me think a moment. I am a little anxious first to tell you about
yourself.

I left so suddenly I had no time for anything. [Correct. — J. H. H.]
[Read incorrectly by S. R. H. reads correctly.] (S. to R. H. : I see.)

I am all right now, only my head troubles me when speaking. Wh . .
Wait for me . . for me.

And do you remember Rice (R. H. : Rice?) [Assent.] [Then hand
dments violently.] (R. H. : No.)

Yes . . P i e ce [?] Pierce. I say Pierce . . D.

(S. to R. H. : I don't remember him.) (R. H. to S. : Say so.)

(No, I do not remember him, but you may say something about him and I
shall enquire.)

D R. Pierce. Lidia Lida . . LI • • Lid a.
(Yes, I remember Lida. What relation is she tome?)

460

J. H. Hy*l»p, Ph.D.

[part

Annie and she are cousins, Li da Aunt. (Yes, which Annie is cousin of
her 0 There is a sister Annie and a cousin Annie and aunt L i d a.
She was an aunt to James Hyslop if I remember rightly and there is a
sister in the body by that name. (Yes. Yes.)

[I do not know this Dr. Pierce. I know a physician by a different name
who may have been my uncle's doctor. The name Rice came nearer what it
is than Pierce. The physician in mind was also my father's doctor both on |
his deathbed and when he lived in Ohio. (See Note 66, p. 517.)

The truth and confusion in this passage are most interesting incidents. I
shall first state the facts, and we can then examine the difficulties. I have a
sister whom we call Lida. My aunt, after whom my sister was named, and
who was the wife of the communicator and still living, was called Eliza.
My uncle in speaking of her and to her always abbreviated the name to Liza.
My sister, proper name Eliza, was called Lida for the very purpose of dis-
tinguishing her from this very aunt. From my uncle's habit, therefore, of
abbreviating his wife's name to Liza, and from the proximity of the two
names in the message, we can understand the form that my aunt's name
takes in the writing. If a similar mistake occurred in the reference to
44 cousin Annie" I can interpret it as intended for 44 cousin Nannie," the
same Nannie that appears in the communications of my cousin R. H. McClellan,
she being the latter's sister and also a frequent visitor and intimate friend
of my uncle and aunt. Otherwise I must consider it as without significance,
as I have no cousin Annie. The relation between this "aunt Lida" and
myself as here stated is correcc, and so is the statement that the other Lida
is my sister. (June 2nd, 1900.) — J. H. H.] [Note 95, p. 536.]

Which is the one If., failed to mention. . . [Correct. — J. H. H.]
And I bad top come to straighten out uncle Clark's mind, James.
I tun jour father. I had to come and help Uncle Clarke straighten out
hil thought*.

[This sudden appearance of my father, with the wonderfully abbreviated
to my sister Lida as the one he had failed to mention, is very
uniting. Not less so is the reference to Uncle Clarke (name not correct,
though * vnk nt to me) with the statement that he had come to 44 straighten
nut his thoughts." — J. H. H.]

1 | iu hi U! here, and I will remain as long as I possibly can.

(Ttift, I am glad to hear that. Please go on.) I wanted to speak of
Uvi my»elf, Jjmies. (Yes, that is right.) And I wanted to hear her sing.
I N you liwr me clearly ? (Yes.)

t know be . . . I know you will remember the organ.
fm I remember it.) And I was just thinking of our Sunday evenings
mthotne. (Yes.)

Y . K . ,+ It J lough time has changed those days they are still lingering in my

\ s, I remember them. Please go on.)
And 1 remember our little family circle very well. You see I go back
ine Ago for the purpose of recalling incidents which took place when
■f them. I am not dreaming, my son, but I am quite clear and
had no idea at first what you really wished of me, then it all came
oil said [hand indicates R. H.] well how would you have James
[Hand moves towards R. H.]

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix III.

461

(R. H. : Yes, I said that.) Yes, you said that.

[This recollection and reference to Dr. Hodgson is a most interesting
one, though perhaps not so remarkable on the spirit theory. On February
7th at a sitting at which I was not present Dr. Hodgson explained the
meaning of this work to my father, and asked him what he would expect of
me in like circumstances (See p. 374). — J. H. H.]

I remember the organ and our singing, the ... oh what was that
hymn, James, we used to sing so often ?

(Keep calm. It will come all right.)

N [f] . . . well I will think of it presently, and . . is it all clear
to you, or are you confused ?

(No, I am not confused, but we would like to see it written out here
when you can think of it.)

[The mark put down as a capital letter N might be an attempt to make
another character altogether. The evidence is that it differs in some features
from the usual capital N". But I cannot entertain any safe conjectures as to
what was intended. (June 3rd, 1900.)— J. H. H.]

Oh, yes, I think I U D. [Interesting as probably indicating an apprecia-
tion of my scientific object. — J. H. H.]

My dear . . . [S. makes some ejaculatory sound which I did not
catch. — R. H.]

[Pause. Hand talks with Sp.] Yes I do . . . Very well . .
I will not try until I am released, and then I will know it and come and say
it for him. (Yes.)

[The reference to the organ and our singing is correct, if we could separate
it from the reference to the hymn. The reference to 44 that hymn," when
taken in connection with the mention of the organ, would present inter-
esting possibilities to most persons. But father would neither use the word
** hymn" in this connection, nor imply that he either sang hymns or used
the organ for any purpose of instrumental worship. He was always opposed
to instrumental music in worship of any kind. But it is perfectly pertinent
to mention a certain 44 hymn" which 44 we used to sing so often." I could
name what would fit the case, but I shall wait to seo what is done in the
future. (What I had in my mind here was the 23rd Psalm. June 3rd,
1900.)— J. H. H.] [0/. pp. 476-477.]

Yes. Oh . . what has Will done with the flute (R. H. : 44 Flute."
«* What has Will done with the flute?") [S. shakes his head negatively.]
flu . . flute . . not flute, I . . oh, dear, I know so well what I
mean . . fid . . fiddle . . fiddle.

(I do not know, but I think you are thinking of another brother and
another musical instrument.)

Yes, I think I am thinking of George. (That is right.) and his C.
... Vial . .

it is my fault . . . [R. H. puts brown knife on table.]

I am thinking of George and his . . the instrument he used to
play . . but the name has gone. [Hand sways in air and moves
fingers suggesting playing concertina.] [The previous note was made at
the moment during the sitting by me, but when S. reminded me, just
after the sitting, of the incident, and said it was the guitar, I recognised

Digitized by

462

J. H. Hyslop, PhJ).

[part

that the movement of the hand fitted the guitar and not the concertina.

(8. to R. H. : Look at that hand.) (Do not bother about the name bow.
I know exactly what you meant.)

Yea, all right. After I go out I will return and recall it. I feel T mu**
g<» for a moment.

[This passage beginning with the reference to a * * flute " was remarkable
for its dramatic feature and for the apparent testimony which it affords in
regard to the difficulties of communicating. When the word " fiddle " came
out, I at once suspected what was meant, but was not sure that it might iM
apply to brother Will, though I had no memory of such a thing, as it was
highly improbable. But it at once flashed on my mind what was intended
and I made the reference to another brother without suggesting the name.
The immediate mention of George shows both the correct name and the
correct conception of the relation involved in the thought of the niuskal
instrument. As soon as the letter C was written, I saw that the sound indi-
cated an approximation to the first letter of the name of the instrument in
mind, and when ** Vial " was written I was satisfied and was going u
suggest that this was enough, when Rector spontaneously recognised
that violin was wrong and assumed the fault himself. Then there begafi
the most remarkable attempt on the part of Mrs. P.'s hand to imitate
the movements of a player when playing on a guitar that one couki
imagine possible under the circumstances. It swayed slightly and inore^
the fingers as if picking the strings, and so clearly imitated the playing
of that instrument that any one thinking of it at the time could not escape
detecting it.

I did not know what a concertina was when I wrote the above portion of
this note, but supposed that it was an instrument played somewhat after the
manner of a guitar. But having ascertained from Miss Edmunds that it is *
wind instrument like the accordion I am at a great loss to understand ho*
Dr. Hodgson could so mistake the movement of Mrs. P. 's hand and fingers.
This mistake has to be mentioned because, having in mind what was intended,
I am liable to the accusation that the resemblance recognised by me was an
illusion of apperception, and Dr. Hodgson's reference to the concertina
powerfully sustains that suspicion. But I am confident beyond all doubt
that there is less reason for this suspicion than the sceptic imagines,
though he is entitled to the caution which such phenomena impose upon the
observer. — J. H. H.]

What is it . . My stepsister . .

I am Charles. + sent me to take father's place. Hettie I did not
remember. (That is right.)

[My brother Charles died in 1865 [Correct date, 1864] and my sister
Henrietta was born in 1874. — J. H. H.]

as she was my stepsister half sister [Correct. — J. H. H.] I mean but 1
could not think of it at first. Do you realise, James, how much our leader
is helping me . . .

(I shall be glad to hear you go on.)

he said, I mean father said . . said . . I mean father said . .
you go Charles and do the best you can until I can breathe more freely

R. H.]

LI.]

Appeiidix III.

463

. . until I can breathe more freely . . . [The above repetitions due
c> non-reading by S.]

Do you remember Uncle James McLellan . . . and Frank . .
peak . . Hyslop. (Yes. I remember Frank Hyslop well.)

He is not here yet, he is over there somewhere, father spoke to me of
im a few moments ago. (That is right.)

[The name of my uncle James McClellan is practically correct and also
hat of my brother Frank Hyslop. Charles could remember little or nothing
bout him. I am not certain at this writing whether Frank was born at
he time of Charles' death. But it is interesting to observe the allusion to
lis having heard father speak of him. The statement that he is still living is
orrect.-J. H. H.]

[I find on examining the birth register that my brother Frank was born
hree years after brother Charles' death. (August 1st, 1899). — J. H. H.]

You see father forgets nothing but he cannot say all that he thinks . .
ill he thinks yet.

Who is Dr. Pierce. He was a friend of Uncle Clarke's, and he is still
>ver there . . there. (Right.) [?] [Assuming that Dr. J. P. Dice
Of. p. 459) is meant by this it is correct, he being a friend of my uncle
ind my father's physician (November 3rd, 1899). — J. H. H.] [I said
* right" at this point in recognition of Dr. Hodgson's correct reading of
he word 44 Clarke's" instead of "Charles" as it first appeared to me.
—J. H. H.] and perhaps you will take the trouble to find him at the

. . * * [undec ] . . oh I am getting mixed too. [R. H. puts
wife into hand.] (My brother Charles.)

I was ill wasn't I, very ill, and when they thought I was getting better I
ras really coming out. You do not know this but Aunt Nannie will, I know.
I do not know anything about this. — J. H. H.] [Cannot be verified, but
iunt Nannie is the only person living besides her sister, aunt Eliza, who
oould possibly know, and aunt Nannie is the one father would mention to
my brother for the purpose because of her excellent memory in most cases
like this (December 30th, 1899). — J. H. H.] [I have learned since also that
my aunt Nannie was teaching near by, and that she came to see my brother
Charles during the illness, but she was not present at his death (June 3rd,
1900.)-^. H. H.]

I am thinking about father's war stories. Do you remember them ? (Yes,
1 do.) [My brother Charles died just before the close of the Civil War when
he was only four and a half years old, and hence can hardly be supposed to
remember father's war stories. But I conjecture that this incident like most
of the others in his communications here, is the result of information on the
'other side." It has an interesting connection with father's earlier refer-
ence to the war (p. 454), and in the coincidence of Charles's death with the
date of that war of which he could remember little or nothing (June 3rd,
1900).— J. H. H.] [Cf. reference to chimney, p. 465.]

And any thing about his leg. (Yes, yes, yes I do.) [This is like the
previous incident (p. 454). — J. H. H.]

and the little . . . James what became of the little ship . . [I
know nothing of this. — J. H. H.]

(I do not remember. I do not remember.)

464

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

think . . think . . think about the boat . . boat.

The other boys must know what I mean. (Yes. I shall ask them about
it.) [Cannot be verified (November 3rd, 1899).— J. H. H.]

And . . we [?] we . . and ask about the time after I left that they
got turned over. I can not ask them because I know. [I know nothing about
this. — J. H. H.] (I shall ask them myself this summer.) [Un verifiable,
(November 3rd, 1899). — J. H. H.]

And what has become of Robert ? (Robert who J) Robert Hyalop.
(Your brother Robert.) Yes. [Correct.— J. H. H.] (He is in Ohio.)
Well . . well . . is he well. (Yes, he is well.) Are those hia
children ? (I do not understand.) No . . No, it was only interruption
. . I am thinking of my brother. [Possibly there is a special pertinence
in asking about my brother Robert, in addition to father's interest in
him. Charles' full name was Charles Robert, and as father had no name-
sake after Charles' death he called his next son simply Robert (November
3rd, 1899). — J. H. H.] [See Note 68, p. 518.]

(That is right.)

And he has some . . some trouble with his eye . . one . .
eyes. Yes, eyes. (Yes, I think that is right.) Yes, it surely is right, and
I am going to see what I can do to help him. [See Note 67, p. 517.]

I will do better for you bye and bye, James, do not get impatient with me.
I was all right, and I tried to do right always. Don't you think so ? (Yes, I do
think so.) I want very much to help you to find us all. I could not stay away.

We had one other sister . . . [other interpreted at the time as sister :
it looks like a mixture of the letters of other and sister.] more . . one
more sister, didn't we, or you did. (Yes. Yes.) I mean you did. (Yes,
that is right. Can you tell her name 0 Yes, Lida . . [Correct.—
J. H. H.] (Yes.) was her name. (Yes, that is right.)

and father knows more about her than I do, but often tells ine about
. . about them, and of another one named like her. Li . . L i z i

. . Lizzie . . . Li . . . no not exactly, but Eliza
# . beth . . Eliza . .

I am not quite sure of this, James.

[It is true that father would know more about sister Lida than Charles, as
this sister was only eight [six] years old when Charles died at six [four
and a half]. It appears also that he is attempting to name my aunt Eliza
after whom my sister Lida (real name Eliza) is named. " Named like her*"
seems to indicate this with reasonable clearness. — J. H. H.]

[Examination of the family records shows that my sister was only Kje
years old when my brother Charles died at/otu* and a-half, (December 31st,
1899).— J. H. H.]

(Well, don't worry about it.)

but he often speaks of L U Cy. (Yes, can you finish that name Lucy 1
Can you come . . )

LUCIN . . . LUCy . . who** [undec.] Mother,
Mother . . L It is L U C y I am speaking about. Lan * * [undec]
LUCy. No, I cannot, James. (I know what it is.) [Said to Dr. Hodg-
son.— J. H. H.]

I will try again to make him hear.

Digitized by

XLI.]

Ajypendix III.

465

LLUCy . A . . Annie . . . will help me for a moment.

I do not think it is wise, will return again when I can speak louder. I
am not confused, am I ? (I think not, but what relation was she to me ?
What relation was she to me ? What relation was this person you are speak-
ing about to me T)

Well, I got it all but the Hyslop.

[Rector apparently thought here that my brother was trying to give Lucy
as the name of a sister or relative. There never was such a person, and it is
curious to remark that in the attempt to trust his inferences Rector goes
astray. But it is not less interesting to observe that, at the end of the
sitting, as Mrs Piper comes out of the trance, there is apparently a special
effort made to get the name Lucy McClellan, and this time they succeeded
(June 3rd, 1900).— J. H. H.]

(Was she very close to me ?) [Hand shakes slightly to indicate not under-
standing.] Say that again.

(Was she very close to me when she was living ?)

Yes, very, and would have remained so, but not a sister nor a cousin nor
an aunt, James, but it is on my mind, and I would like to tell you all I can
about her, but I am a little weaker just now.

[Brother Charles had tried to give this Lucy in a previous sitting (p.
455), and the communications seemed very much confused. But as my
uncle James McClellan was named a few minutes before in the present
sitting, I here inferred that the attempt was to give the name of his
daughter-in-law, who, I thought, was meant the first time the name was
given, but I gave up this idea because the relationship mentioned seemed
false. But as soon as 1 saw the hesitation the first time I saw the name Lucy
written, I thought it possible that the reference might be to my twin sister
Sarah Luella who had died before Charles was born, as the first two letters
of her name Luella are the same as that of Lucy. Hence I remarked to Dr.
Hodgson that I knew what it meant. I ought to have seen that: "It is
Lucy I am speaking about. Lan . . . " was not intended for my sister,
but I did not. However, I resolved to test the case by asking for the
relationship to me of the person indicated. I put the question in the form
mentioned, almost the identical language referring to her possibly in an earlier
sitting (p. 309), in order to satisfy a special purpose. The answer is somewhat
puzzling. It seems to answer me both affirmatively and negatively. But by
separating the statements they can both of them be interpreted as true. This
Lucy, still living, is neither sister, nor aunt, nor cousin, except we consider
the last by marriage, she being the wife of the Robert McClellan who commu-
nicated before. But the statement that 4 4 she " was very close to me and * * would
have remained so," seems to imply that the lady was not living, while in fact
she is. But this implication and the closeness of the relation asserted, if
applied to the sister that I had in mind, would be perfectly relevant. — J.H.H.]

(R. H. : I think he'd better stop, Rector.)

Yes, he is going, don't . •

He is going far off canst thou not see him yet.

(R. H. : Rector, the writing is getting worse and worse. Perhaps the
light is failing.)

Yes, it is, but speak slowly, friend.

Digitized by

466

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PABT

He [Imjierator] was trying to assist him to recall his memories as he was
clear on arrival (S. : " service ") arrival . . clearer on arrival here. UD
(R. H. : 44 Clearer on arrival here.' ) U D. (R. H. : Yes.)

Oh God, thou allwise Father, give us more light on the returning of the
light and ere we return to earth * * [undec.] we may be able to hear distinctly
and clearly the voices of Thy Messengers and all returning friends. We
beseech thee, Oh Father, to render (S. : * 4 render") (R. H. : 44 remember. *
To S. : Don't you say anything.) [S.'s interpretation was correct-. I saw
that the writing was becoming fainter, and thought that it would avoid
confusion if S. did not try to interpret, but left it entirely to me at this
stage. — R. H.] us Thy aid and [not read at once] . . render us thy
help in all our undertakings. We . . faileth [failtheth ?] Thy help we are
indeed bereft. Merciful Father, Oh thou Allwise God Merciful God give us
help and light [not all read at once] . . Allwise and Merciful . . .

We cannot bring thy father back this day. Yet we will not fail thee,
(R. H. : " Yet we will fail thee.")

Yet we will not fail thee after we depart and return again. (R.H. : Amen.)

The light is failing and we must soon cease. (R. H. : Yes the time is up
also.) We will return with light. (R. H. : Amen.)

May God watch over thee through this day. [through not read at once.]
throughout this day. (R. H. : Amen.)

Farewell + R. }

[Mrs. P.'s Bublim.]
(R. H. : Kindly send the light back quickly.) [Repeated.]
Lucy . . (R. H. : Your tongue prevents the articulation.) [Repeated.]
Tell Hyslop. Lucy . . Lucy . . McLellan.

[S. caught this sound before me and said 44 McLellan," which I then
recognised it to be before it was repeated. — R. H.]
McLellan — McLellan.

Good-bye [from Mrs. P. apparently to Sp.]

I wanted to say ... I want to say it well [?]

[This mention of the name Lucy McClellan as Mrs. P. came out of th#
trance represents the right name to clear up both the difficulties of brother
Charles' statement and much of the confusion in the previous sittings. I
shall now l>e able to run down a good many intimations. The matter now
stands thus. This Lucy McClellan is the wife, still living, of the Robert
HoOIpHrtn who communicated on several occasions. He is the son of the
Jiii j u Mi L'lellan, my uncle, who died in 1876. All were very warm friends
of my UlUtiv and myself. — J. H. H.]

Introduction.

The symptoms of the trance to-day were in many respects the same
in previous cases, but in a few particulars quite different. I noticed
More that the yawning and sighing which accompanied the approach
trance were incidents of this state and not of the normal Mrs, P.
Thp fast peculiarity, not noticed before, was the interruption of a short
Of apparent unconsciousness, the eyes being closed, by a few

eriod of a

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix III.

467

moments of apparent lucidity. But when the trance became quite
profound there was the catching of the breath as of a person in the
throes of death, but this soon stopped, and the breathing became as it
usually is in the trance. — J. H. H.
June 6th, 1899.

Record of Sitting. June 6th 1899.

Prof. J. H. H. and R. H.
[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]
I'd like to go to sleep and sleep for ever, when it's . . when it's hot.
[Just beginning to lose ordinary consciousness.]

[Rector writes.]

HAIL. (R. H. : Hail.)

[Hand then seems distressed, cramped, and writes with much difficulty.]

we like not (R. H. : the position of the light ?)

thy arrangement. (R. H. : Wait one moment kindly.)

[As Mrs. P. lost consciousness, the upper part of the body tended to
sway on one side somewhat, out of equilibrium, and we had a little difficulty
in arranging her head properly upon the cushions. While doing so, Professor
Hyslop moved Mrs. P.'s chair somewhat forward and to the side, with the
object of placing her body in a better position as regards the cushioned table,
and we also changed the position of the table itself. On reading the above
writing and examining the position of Mrs. P.'s body I found that it had
sagged over slightly to the right, and it would not apparently remain in a
convenient position. On stooping down and looking at Mrs. P.'s feet,
slightly moving her dress for the purpose, I found that the feet were crossed
and one foot was partly turned over on the side. I uncrossed the feet and
planted them straight in front of her, and we then re-arranged the upper
part of the body.— R. H.]

[This was a very remarkable incident. As Mrs. P.'s head fell on the
pillow I saw that her body was in a crooked position, and feared that during
the writing she might topple over. Consequently I moved the chair upon
which Mrs. P. was sitting so as to straighten her up a little and prevent her
falling over. The table was then pulled up closer to her, and we proceeded
to wait for the writing. My surprise can be imagined when the allusion to
something being wrong with the machine was made, and turned out to be
what Dr. Hodgson has described. It is interesting to remark also that there
was a connection between this position and the indistinctness of the writing.
As soon as Mrs. P. was put into the proper position the writing appeared
natural as usual. I had supposed that the change was due to the transition
from Imperator to Rector, as the writing before the allusion to Mrs. P.'s
condition was made resembled, to me at least, that of Imperator. But the
resumption of the writing immediately by Rector without the symptoms that
usually accompany a change of personality rather indicates a connection
between the cramped position of Mrs. P. and the writing. — J. H. H.]

We meet thee with joy. HAIL thee once more. (R. H. : Amen.)
[R. H. motions to 8. to speak.]

V 2 i

Digitized by VjOOQIC

468

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

(T hail thee this morning with joy.)

All peace to thee, dear friend, and may thy future life while in its mortal
covering be as peaceful as the Messengers of the Most High would have it,
and it will be so. + R.

Hearest thou me . . may the blessings of God rest on thee evermore.
We have much to say to thee ere we depart for some time. U D. (Yes.)

We have some advice for thee concerning thy . . -self . . self
and thy work. (I U D.) +

Time there will be for all things, and we ask thee to hwry not.

(R. H. : Yes. Rector, we received the name Lucy McClellan from the
light on her return the last time, and were very grateful. We should be
glad if you would kindly let us know when it would be desirable for our
friend here to ask his father one or two questions which he would like him to
answer during this visit either this time or on the next two times, any time
that you think desirable.)

I am interrupted. Kindly repeat last three words. [Towards end of my
remarks hand had turned away from me as if to talk to Sp. — R. H.]

(R. H. : If the spirit Hyslop will be ready to answer one or two ques-
tions before our friend's next times are finished.)

Ask thy questions, friend, when thy father announces himself as being
present, and ask them quite slowly and distinctly that he may U D fully the
question, as it may take some time for him to grasp the meaning fully, and
if he faileth to answer this day it will give him time to think over and reply
at the first coming of the light. U D. (R. H. : Yes.)

All questions should be put slowly and distinctly to him.

H., how are you . . I have just been called upon to lend a helping
hand. You see I am not wholly isolated [isoliated ?] . . i . . [inter-
preted at the time as dissociated] from you.

(R. H. : Good, George, were you here last time 1)

For a few moments. I helped a man named Charles, but I did not get a
chance to say, How de do, H. (R. H. : All right, George.)

I am going after the elderly gentleman, look out for me.

(R. H. : We will.) Grot those theories all straightened out yet, H f
, . theories. (R. H. : Pretty fairly.)

I am going. Auf wiedersehen. G. P.

I am coming, James. I am coming, James, my son.

(S. to R. H. : Shall I ask my question ?)

(R. H. to S. : Wait a minute, wait a minute, don't be in too great a hurry.)

I will be with you in a moment. Hear me. (Yes, I hear. Good
morning, father.) Good morning, James. I hope it is a good morning with
you. (Yes, it is. Yes, it is a good morning.)

(S. to R. H. : Perhaps you'd better tell them * * ask question) [ ?]
[One or two words not heard by R. H. (January 1st, 1900). — J. H. H.]

I am glad to hear it, it is always fine here, but you cannot U D it.

(R. H. : Mr. Hyslop.)

Yes, what is it, friend ?

rR. H. : Your son wishes to know one or two things specially. Shall h«
le thing now ? If you do not think of the answer do not trouble, but
you go away think it over and come back afterwards with the reply.)

xu.] Appendix III. 469

Well, that is clear enough, I am sure.

(Can you tell me some things that took place before I was born, and
which Aunt Nannie and Aunt Eliza will know. All things of this kind will
shut out the thought theory, you understand.)

Well, I do in part, James, just let our friend repeat it for me, as I have
a friend helping me who U D his accent [acent] better than . . acen . .
I can either of yours at present. I know yours perfectly, but as he [is] chief
helper he can hear better in so doing.

(R. H. : Yes. I . . )

What about my sisters ? I could not quite get that . . get . .
(R. H. : Yes . . .) . . (R. H. : I will explain. Hyslop here
wishes . . )

James. (R. H. : Yes, James wishes his father) [Hand points to Sp.]
(R. H. : Yes ... to tell him some incidents that Hyslop in the
body, his son James, does not know, and . . and that Aunt Nannie and
Aunt Eliza will know.) U D. (R. H. : Then . . people can't say that
they came out of the mind of James.)

[Hand rises, then bows, as if telling and then listening to Sp.]
Yes, very well, this is not so difficult a thing to do, I am sure.
(R. H. : One moment. There is another point. If possible, he should
recall things before James was born. In other words, get him to think of
incidents with his . . ) (R. H. to S. : Sisters?) (S. to R. H. : No, aunts.
Yes, sisters.) (R. H. : His sisters Nannie and Eliza before James was born . .
that they will remember.)

Yea, very well, I U D perfectly, and I will go back to my boyhood and
tell you what you cannot deny. U D. I feel better this day and I can see
you clearer than I ever have before. I am going out for a moment and
[shall] think it over, and I will return in a few moments. U D. (Yes.
I U D.)

I heard that perfectly and I should know that voice anywhere.

Don't hurry so, friend. Come away. [Between Sp. apparently.]

Is Jamea Hyslop here, if so give him my love and say it is as I would
have it, and I shall always feel as I did before he went away. I want very
much to say something to him, but how can I ?

[Pause.]

I want to return as soon as possible and free my mind, I have much to
talk over with him. My name I gave to Mr. Clarke . . gave . . and told
him to say I was here L U C Y [?]

(S. to R. H. : What's that?) L U C Y.

Where is the book of poems ? Ask him if he knows what I am thinking
about. [I cannot now imagine who this is nor what the book of poems
means. The Lucy given would suggest my cousin, Robert McClellan, but
the rest is unintelligible. — J . H. H.] [See Note 69, p. 518.]

[Stir in hand.]

Yes, I am here once more. Will you kindly ask aunt Eliza if she
remembers a young man named B a k er, and if she recall going to a prayer
meeting one evening with him, and if . . ask her [written above]
(R. H. : "ask her if") she remembers who teased her about him. (I U D.
Go on.)

Digitized by Google

470

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PABT

and ask them both if they remember Jerry,

(R. H. : Jerry f) Yen. (S. to R. H. : That's right.)

(R. H. : Jerry 0 Yes.

Perhaps you may know of this. If you do, say so, James, and I will
think of something else which you do not know.

(Yes, I have heard you talk about Jerry, but please give the rest of his
name for Aunt Nannie.)

Ah, but it is no use if you know it . . (All . . . ) [I remember
distinctly hearing father and mother mention this Jerry, and what became of
him, but I never saw him unless when so young that I could not remember
the fact.— J. H. H.]

but ask her (All right.) [I thought the "ask her" referred to this
Jerry and said " All right," but it goes with the following incident. — J. H. H.]

if she remembers who put the shoes in her bed. (R. H. : shoes f shoes f)
Yes, I say SHOES.

(R. H. : Good.) (All right. I shall ask her.)

and a sock (S. : "sack?") (R. H. : "sock?") SOCK (R. H. :
" sock " ?) Yes, on the post. No one on earth can know this, as mother U
here, and she and the Rogers girl only will testify to it.

[Excitement in hand.]

I have something better.

Ask her if she recalls the evening when we broke the wheel to our wagon
. . the . .
(I see. Go on.)

and who tried to cover it up, so it would not leak out so to speak. 1
remember it as if it happened yesterday [Characteristic phrase of father's.—
J. H. H.] and she will remember it too.

I cannot tell you any more just now, but I will think over what is on my
mind about our school days an . . and of my trying to preach to the boy
in the barn . . boys . . and more about it.

Be sure and ask about Baker, Jerry, and the broken wheel.

(Yes. I certainly shall do so.)

If any one's mind can know this who is present, I don't believe it. The
girls alone know what I mean, and you will find it just as I tell you, James.
(Yes, very well, father, I shall ask about it.)

Is this what you wanted ? Well I am a little weak just now and I will

step out.

(R. H. to S. : Thank him very much and tell him he can go away and
come again.) (Thank you very much, father. You can go away and come
again.) All right, James. Be patient with me . . (Yes, I shall. Yes,
I shall be patient.)

Gone. [See Note 70, p. 619.]

Rest thy body, friend. [A very singular injunction to me by Rector, the
fact being that I was quite tired. — J. H. H.]
[Hyslop sits down.]

[Hand bows as in prayer, after cross in air.]

I am here once more. I am James McLellan if you wish to know and
you are my namesake . . name. [Correct.— J. H. H.]

(Yes, I remember you and that you, . . that I am your namesake.)

Digitized by Google j

XLI.]

Appendix III.

471

Yes, all right. We cannot quarrel about that, can we, James, but I
despised the name of Jim. [Pertinent. We always called him by another
name. But I never knew why we did so, nor that he despised the name
Jim. — J. H. H.] (Very well, I understand.)

What is it you want to know about Frank, or was it John who wanted to
know / (There was some confusion when Frank was mentioned, and also
when John was mentioned. Who is this cousin John that was mentioned
before T) [p. 445.] It was not cousin, that was a mistake. (Yes. Is he in
the body or is he in the spirit ?) He is here, and [Hand dissents violently]
I intend to straighten this out, but the light went out, and I could not remain
there. He is a brother . . [Correct. — J. H. H.]

Yes all right . . [to Sp.]

and he will be here soon.1

But it is still not straight . . straight. [Perhaps from G. P. to Sp.]
Wait and I will explain.

You remember brother John very well, you must if you are James.
[Correct and interesting. — J. H. H.] (Yes. I remember him well.)
He was the one who went to war.

[I may have known this, but the only reason for supposing it is the fact
that I was acquainted with him while at college, he being its treasurer. I
have not the slightest recollection of ever knowing his connection with the
war, but if it be true I cannot say that I never knew the fact. — J. H. H.]

(Very well. Go on.)

Let me see. [This is evidently intended to correct the above. — J. H. H.]
Well, perhaps you remember father, don't . . do [superposed on don't]

you not ? (Do you mean your father ?) Yes. [I never knew him, and do

not recall ever hearing of him. — J. H. H.]

1 June 10th, 1900. In May I wrote to this John McClellan a letter inquiring
About some of the facts connected with his father's life, and received from his son
a letter in reply, dated May 16th, and received by me the next day, saying that his
father had died on the 30th of March last. I wrote to Dr. Hodgson asking him to
inquire at his sitting of J une 4th of my father, if he could reach him, whether he had
knowledge of anything recent to tell me. I kept Dr. Hodgson ignorant of the facts,
though be knew from my explanation to him that I wanted information of the recent
death of some one connected with the report. The following is what occurred at
the sitting.

"(I have first in importance an inquiry for Mr. Hyslop to answer if possible.
Has anything happened recently that you wish to tell James ?) [Cross in air.]

His father has been cheering up a friend who hath passed over to him of late, and
he will return here and speak to thee of him ere we depart. (Good.) [A little later
was written : ] Mr. McLellan also sent a word to say all is well and better than ho
hoped. There was another message, but it was disconnected . . disconnected . .
sad vague. Will get it before we depart. This will be better U D presently."

[A little later my father appeared, and the following occurred :— ]

"Did you call for me to answer some questions for James, R. H. [Robert
Hyslop.] (I . . . ) Well, I am glad to see you.

(I am pleased, Mr. Hyslopv James wants you to give him some particular
information, as detailed as you can, about something that has happened recently
which he thinks you ought to know about that will help as evidence.) evidence. (Yes.)

Well, Hettie has got through with her work splendidly, and Mr. Molellan has
come over to me and . . splendidly . . he is delighted with the change,

472

J. H. Hyalvp, Ph.D.

[part

(Is this my uncle James McClellan ?) Yes. (Yes — no I do not remember
your father.) Well, he was John. (Very well.)

John James McClellan [James written first. John written in front d
James, then McLellan written after. — J. H. H.]

(R. H. : "James John McLellan " 1) No. John James McLellan.

(Very well. I U D, and shall inquire about it.)

Well, go ahead and inquire. I think I know.

(Well, all right. Please tell me anything you wish to tell.)

I wanted to tell you about his going to the war, and about one of his
fingers being gone before he came here.

(Very well. Go on please. I UD.)

And he had a brother David, who had a S U N stroke.

(I U D. I U D. That is perfectly new to me. I never heard it before,
and it pleases me very much to learn this fact.)

Well, he never was well after he received it until he came here.

Then one more I wanted to speak of was Nancy but I cannot tell yon
any more now.

(R. H. to S. : Very good.) [Indicating to S. to make some such remark.]
(Very good. Thank you very much. Rest now.)

Be brave, upright, honourable, do the best you can and don't forget your
uncle James Mc. [Correct name. — J. H. H.]

Good-bye. (R. H. to S. : Say . . .) (Good-bye. Good-bye, uncle,
for the present.)

* * * [undec. James or yours f] James McLellan.

per . . (Yes. Which McClellan?) John . ... did ... . perhaps you beard
me speak of him before. (Yes, I think so. What relation is he to James ?) he is his
uncle or great uncle to him. (What is he to James McClellan?) He is a brother.

(Well, I am not clear about what you say when you say that . . . ) [Hasd j
motions slightly up and down quickly as if to stop my speaking. ]

Listen, will you kindly repeat your first question. He is James Mc father
McClellans u ? ( H ho is ?)

Now, wait I am a little confused myself. He is James McClellan 's uncle and
great uncle to my son James, th [?]

(Rector, I think that Mr. Hyslop had better go away and think over just who
this person is that has passed over, as he says, and come back and tell me clearly-)
Yes, all right." [On his return he said :— ]

"I am here, and if you remember my reference to James to James McC3eU*i
. . . this is the same one to whom I referred before, and be is , . . .the
elderly gentleman to whom I referred, and he is James Mclellan's uncle. (Jamai
McClellan s unck ?) Yes. (I believe that he is confused, Rector).

Well, friend, in any case it would be wise to repeat this to him later, and ask him
to explain after the light has been removed.

(Rector, I must say that, so far as I can see, the light is worse this time almost
than I have known it at all since you began to come. The energy seems more feeble,
the writing seems not so clear, and it suggests that there has been a retrogression ia
the working of the mechanism.)

Friend, thou canst see the necessity of our closing the light soon. Friend, the
light is not, neither hath it been for some time as clear as we desire."

[On June 12th, when Dr. Hodgson was again present, G. P., Rector writing, sent
the following message :]

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix III.

47a

[Hand writes H over the name, about between James and McLeilan.]
[James H. McLeilan ?]

(S. to R. H. : There's an H. over it.)

[Between Sp.] Yes, all right. Don't feel badly about it. Come
again . .

[See Notes 71, p. 520, and 72, p. 521.]

Yes, I am back again, James, and I have or did have a box of minerals
. . . minerals I had when I was a boy, and whatever became of them I
am unable to say. Will you try and look them up for me. [I know nothing
of this. — J. H. H.] (Yes, I shall try to do so.) [See Note 73, p. 522.]

What was the name of that Dr. ? I cannot think of his name. [See
Note 74, p. 523.]

(Well, don't worry. It will come. Be patient.)

They tell me in time I can return again after the light goes out for a long
time. I shall be glad of this, but will you kindly tell me what you have
done with all those books I gave you ? (I have them in my library.)

Oh yes library, I remember of course. Science and theology. I sent you
the year before I came here two, did I not ? (This . . is this father
speaking ?) Yes, I. (I forget about that, but will think it over.)

I think you will find that I sent you a box containing two or more
books before I became so ill. I have it on my mind now, and I think I am
right about it. Did you ask about the paper reading yet and about my
glasses troubling me ?

Yes. [in reply to correct reading.]

" I saw Hyslop [hislop], and learned that it was McCle . . . McClellan's ton-
to whom he referred, but the light was so poor he could not talk intelligently. He
will see you later and explain all."

The first matter of interest to note here is the realisation of the prediction made
on June 6th, 1899, and the correctness of the general statement of John McClellan's
recent death. But it is apparent that there is some confusion in regard to the
relationship. Two correct statements were made regarding it. The first was that
he was a brother of James McClellan, and the second that he was a son of John
McClellan referred to before (p. 472). All the references to "uncle" and " great
"uncle," relating him to me in this way were false. The mistake, however, is
perhaps a natural one in the light of the following facts.

There are John McClellan, Sr., John McClellen, Jr., and James McClellan, the
last two sons of the first. There is also the other John McClellan who has no deter-
minate relation to any of these, so far as I know (p. 111). Now James McClellan
was my uncle by marriage with my father's sister. If my uncle's father is a relation-
ship in any way analogous to that of my father's uncle, we may well understand the
source of the confusion in the attempt to assign the relationship. The person whose
death was predicted, and who died on March 90th 1900, is John McClellan, Jr. The
confusion lay in the question of uncles, and it is therefore interesting to note that in
the statement on June 12th, G. P. avoided this entirely, and specified that the
person concerned was John McClellan's son, thereby making it clear that it was
John McClellan, Jr.

The reference to my sister as having finished her work is in the main correct.
She had but one piece of work to do after this date in completion of her course. It
must be remembered, however, that I had intimated to my father at the sitting of
February 6th, 1900, that she would graduate in the spring.— J. H. H.

Digitized by

474

J. H. UysLop, Ph.D.

[pakt

(Yes. I asked about that, and found it all right if I remember rightly.)
[See >\*e 74, p. 523.]

Well now I feel satisfied to feel that that you are at least pulling with my
push. [See Xote, p. 340, on the phrase 44 pulling with my push." — J. H. H.]
(R. H. : ** pushing ") . . pulling . . and that is all I can ask of you.
I remember perfectly well what my own theories were concerning this life,
and my too often expressing doubts about it. . it . I do indeed [not read
at once] but I think I was moved with the thought that I should lire
somewhere . . I do indeed . . . yes . . and not die as a Vegetable.

[I never knew that father had the slightest doubt about this. He never
expressed any doubt about it to me, not even in the conversation I had with
him on the subject, and I could not understand this confession of doubt if it
were not for the surprisingly receptive attitude which he took in that con-
versation for the scientific evidence which I produced in favor of it on that
occasion. I had expected some reproach for my interest in it and a reminder
that this could come to us only by faith in a revelation. He was always
careful to keep his intellectual and moral perplexities from all of us, if he
had any ; so much so that it is inexplicable now to be told that he had them
on this subject. Of course it remains to prove that this is true, and I should
not tolerate it as even possible were it not thoroughly consonant with his
behaviour in our conversation and with his interest in Swedenborg. — J. H. H.]
[November 3rd, 1899. It is possible that the doubt refers to the
possibility of spirit communication. — J. H. H.]

Do you remember our conversations on this subject ? (Yes I do. Can
you tell when it was ? Yes I do remember the . . . ) Yes, do yon
remember of my last visit . . your last visit (Yes.) with me. [Cf. p. 440.]
(Yes. I remember it well.)

It was more particularly on this occasion than before.
(Yes, that is right. Do you know what I was doing just before I made
the visit >)

Yes, I believe you had been experimenting on the subject and I
remember of your telling me something about Hypnotism. [Correct.—
J+ H. H+] (Yes, I remember that well.)

Ami what did you tell me about some kind of manifestation which you
were in doubt about ? (It was about apparitions near the point of death.)

| Excit fiuent in hand.]

Oh, yes, indeed, I recall it very well, and you told me a young woman
iS : "yovtng man") no (S. : not man) . . a young woman who had had
aoiue experiments and dreams. (Yes ; that is right. Yes, that is right.)

u liK'li interested me very much, but yet you were doubtful about life
after .s^-ntlk-d death. Remember the long talks we had together on this,
Jan i en. Yes, I remember them very well, and I am no more

doubtful.)

is a perfectly correct account of the visit I paid to him, my last as
in 1895. It is interesting to remark the mistake, as if
b» some visit of his own, and then the correction of it
visit. But all the allusions here are correct, unless an
be based upon the use of the word " experiments." I talked

(I UD.) [<y.p.386.]

XLI.]

Appendix III

475

with father on this occasion about Mrs. D., an account of whose experience*
I gave him at the time. But my 44 experiments " with her on crystal vision
were not made until a few weeks after my visit and the report of them
not published until after his death. I might have mentioned the experiments
in a letter to him. The other experiences, narrated in the same report with
the crystal visions, I knew as early as 1893, and some in 1894, before I
visited father, which was during the mid-year examinations in 1895.

There is an interpretation of this, however, which consists with the use
of the word " experiments." I spoke of the above possible difficulty because
any reader of my paper on Mrs. D. would at once interpret the word
" experiments " as referring to those in crystal vision, which were made after
this conversation. But the fact is that one of the phenomena which I had
mentioned to my father in the conversation was the case of a dream coinci-
dence and the experiment to see if Mrs. D. could identify by a photograph
the person appearing, whom she had never seen. (Proceedings S.P.R.,
Vol. XII., pp. 272-274.) Hence the case can have a clear reference to this
instance which had appeared so remarkable to my father.

The allusion to 4 'some kind of manifestation/' recognised as meaning
apparitions near the point of death, possibly refers to what I said about the
Census of Hallucinations (Proceedings S.P.R., Vol. X.) published in August
of 1894, and to one which my stepmother mentioned where one of her parents
— I have forgotten which — appeared to the other when dying. I was
especially sceptical in my treatment of these hallucinations on this occasion.
I explained hypnotism quite fully, and tried several times during my visit to
hypnotise my brother Frank, who was then an invalid. I remember father
watched me with great interest and with some disappointment when I failed
to effect hypnosis, as he had never seen it. — J. H. H.]

God knows best, and if your (R. H. : 44 You.") (S. to R. H. : Isn't that
your ?) father ever lived I am his spirit. I am he. 1 am he. (I UD.)

I feel, think and (S. : 44 1 feel this and ") [Hand moves slightly towards
R. H.] (R. H. : 44 1 feel this and ") I feel, think and know as well as I ever
did, and yet I am not able to express in this way all I think. I may give
out my thoughts in fragments, but if I do I hope they may at least comfort
you a little.

(Yes, yes, father, and it will help me in the great cause for the world.)

Yes, and humanity at large, I trust.

Good-morning, James. I will go with you, my boy.

Good-bye. Robert Hyslop, your old father. [Correct name and relation
as already remarked several times. — J. H. H.]

(S. to R. H. : That's it. 44 Your old father.") [S. sits down.]

Now, may the grace of God be and abide with thee evermore.

(R. H. : Amen.) [R. H. nods to S. to say something to hand, which
stretches back somewhat towards S.] (Amen.)

Farewell. + Imperator. {R.}

[Various inarticulate attempts at utterance, in which names of George and
Charles and sister could alone be distinguished.]

I want to take it to them. [More inarticulate utterances.]

[Mrs. P. '8 sublim.]

476

J. H. Hyslop, PkJ).

[part

I wmat— I want . . I can't . . . Rd . . Rd . . yes I hear
y*m . . Robert.

I want fc» tell George Pelhanu

Too can't sing. (R. H. : You can't 0

Elderly gentleman, hasn't any teeth. Hurt's fanny. [My father had no
teeth when he died. — J. H. H.] [See note to utterances as Mrs. P. entered
the trance at the next sitting, that of June 7th (November 3rd, 1899). — J.H.H.]

[Mrs. P. begins to weep] (R. H. : What's the matter 0

I don't want to go in the dark. 0 that's, that's, that must be the window.
But I wonder, I wonder where they all went. That's funny. I forgot that
I was alive. I forgot you, Mr. Hodgson. I was going to tell you something,
but IVe forgotten what it was. You see when my head snaps I can't tell
you anything. It must be night. Oh dear ! I feel a little weak I think.
Is that my handkerchief ?

[S. opens door. Mrs. P. turns and looks at him.]

(Do you know me T)

Well I do, but I never got a look at you before.

Well, you're the gentleman that came with Mr. Hodgson, aren't you?
Well, I never looked at you before.

[This is a fact which I have remarked at every sitting I have had. I
wanted to see whether any objections to the results of my experiments could
be made from the accusation that I was " sized up " by Mrs. P., and things
told me that might be conjectured as we read character. But Mrs. Piper has
never paid any attention to me ; has not even spoken to me since I was
introduced to her, and disregards me so thoroughly that there is no use for
me to look at her at all except to record the fact that she pays no attention
to me. I spoke to her deliberately in her dazed condition, and she stared at
me for a few moments like a wild person, and then broke out into the utter-
ances mentioned. — J. H. H.]

Are you going out ? (R. H. : Lots of time.)

Oh, I couldn't tell you how that gentleman looked, Mr. Hodgson, I never
looked at him.

I don't like the heat at all. [Mrs. P. still dreamy up to this point.]

I was careful to observe whether I was noticed this morning by
Mrs. P. as she came into the room. Dr. Hodgson and I went upstairs
before seeing Mrs. P. at all. I sat down upon a sofa and picked up a
morning paper to read until Mrs. P. came up. When she came into
the room, or rather just as she entered the door, she spoke to Dr.
Hodgson, and as she walked to a writing-desk she turned her head and
took a mere glance at me reading the paper, but finding that I had
turned my eyes in that direction, she at once turned away and there-
after paid no more attention to me than if I had not been in the room.

The symptoms of the trance repeated themselves as usual except
that, as the trance approached, the mention of the number 25, and then,

Introduction.

XLI.]

Appendix III.

477

as I thought, 23, suggested to me that they had a connection with the
language Mrs. P. used as she came out of the trance the day before,
when she said, " You can't sing, elderly gentleman hasn't any teeth.
That's funny," this language being capable of reference to the " hymn "
he was trying to mention. If the number 23, as I thought I heard it,
be correct, it is the right number of the " hymn " [psalm] that I had
in mind and supposed father had also. But there is no assurance that
there is any such connection with previous sittings in incidents of this
kind. I can only mention a possibility of this because of a coincidence
in the case. I referred in a previous note to the fact that father had no
teeth at the time of his death, but I supposed that the " you can't
sing " was only an incoherence. But it afterward occurred to me that
for some years before his death he had to give up singing at family
worship because of the gradual loss of his voice, and if there is any-
thing in the supposition of continued weaknesses of this kind after
death, which must seem absolutely incredible to us, the incident might
represent an attempt on the other side, as in the case of the guitar, to
sing the " hymn " he had in mind with the hope that some of it might
come through. If so, the 23 is a relic of this attempt, the 25 being a
mistake. — J. H. H.
June 7 th, 1899.

[See Note 75, p.524.]

[I had in mind at the time the 23rd Psalm, which was sung at
family worship and recited on certain occasions more frequently than
any other (June 9th, 1900).— J. H. H.]

Record of Sitting, June 7th, 1899.

Prof. J. H. H. and R. H.

[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]

* * [twenty-five f] (R. H. : Twenty-five ? twenty-five did you say ?)

* * [twenty-five ?] (R. H. : twenty-five ?)

(S. to R. H. : It sounded like twenty-three the time previous to this. I
know what that means.) (R. H. to S. : You do ?) (S. to R. H. : Yes.)

[Rector writes.]
HAIL. (R. H. : Hail, Imperator and Rector.)

Hail thee this day with peace and peace to thee we bring + (R. H. :
Amen.) (Hail this morning with pleasure.)

We meet thee and hail thee with joy. All is peaceful with us and may it
ever be with thee. (R. H. : Amen.)

[Hand bows as in prayer.]

Oh, Holy Father, thou Divine Being, maker of Heaven and earth, we
beseech Thee this day to send light unto thy fellow beings. Keep them,
Oh Father, in the paths of righteousness and virtue. Lead them to know

Digitized by

478

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

more of Thee and Thy wondrous workings for the redemption of their own
souls. We ask for no more but leave all else to Thee + Imperator {R}
(R. H. : Amen.)

We meet thee and bring thy friends to thee this day.

Here is one thing which thy father wished me to say to thee.

Friend of earth, nearest thou me ? R. (I U D.)

I remembered [{] after leaving my son through the light}

[Hand makes slight motion, suggesting reliance on R. H. to U D that
certain words were to be enclosed in brackets.] of having been as a boy in
possession of a small boat (S. : "coat?") (R. H. : "boat?") B . .
which was when I was about ten or twelve years old. I fet [?] forget who
made it, but I remember of my going out to a little stream and getting my
clothes wet through, and if I mistake not it was Eliza who helped me to get
out of the difficulty. I know I have the facts clear, but the details I cannot
recall. You might ask her about the boat and about helping me get dry,
which is the most I can remember. (Yes, I shall certainly ask her.) I know
you will find I am right about it. [I know absolutely nothing of this.— J.
H. H.] [See Note 76, p. 524.]

I am here, James. I heard them telling you what I said to Rector and
Moses [Stainton Moses. See Vol. XIII., p. 408.— J. H. H.] after I ceased
speaking with you before. [Cf. p. 340.]

Speak to me and speak as you did when I was on earth, James, and fear
nothing.

(Yes. Is this father who said the last sentence ?) Yes.

(Who made that cap you referred to so often ? Who made that cap you
referred to so often ?) Mother.

(Well, which mother ? The one on your side or on this side ? Which
mother, the one on your side or the one on my side ?) on my side.

[The term mother was so equivocal to me that I was forced to ask for the
distinction which my question suggests. But I made a botch of it in the way
I put the question. I was governed by the use which I had made before of
the same mode of expression, thinking that it would be understood, as before,
but it was not, and I have myself to blame for not saying stepmother, as 1
should have done, and as I was reproached later by G. P. for not doing.

The expression "on my side " would be wrong if interpreted as coming
from father, but the statement that follows shows that the expression "on
my side " was repeated to father and not sent from him. This makes both
the apparent confusion and the connection perfectly clear and correct—
J. H. H.]

(Do you mean in the earthly life or in the spirit life ?)

Oh, I sec what you moan. Your mother, James, is with me, but Hettie s
mother is in the body, [This is exactly correct. — J. H. H.]

(Yes, that is right. Do you remember any trip with her out West ?)

[As my mother's naim was not given, and as I was satisfied with the
s ressed by it, I knew that the right person was
in mind and put at once a question both to serve as still more certain
identification, and to call Out some incidents about which I know little or
nothing, Father and my stepmother took a trip out to the far West before
he decided to go to Indian* in order to look for such a home as he finally

Digitized by

Appendix III

479

adopted in the last named State. If he had mentioned any particulars of this
trip they would have served a twofold purpose, first identification to the
second wife still living, and second the mention of incidents that I do not
know. — J. H. H.]

certainly, I told you about it before some time ago, did you not U D it ?

[This is quite a remarkable answer, as showing the confusion which my
badly put question occasioned, and the memory of what had been told me
before, and which I was not sure I had rightly understood. The error in my
question consisted in failing to use the word "stepmother" or "second
wife," instead of the pronoun " her." For the mention of a trip out West in
connection with the word " mother " would inevitably suggest the trip which
father, my mother and myself took out West in 1861. The mention of his
having told me of it before shows that this very suggestion was produced.
The reference makes clear, however, what I was doubtful about at the time*
—J. H. H.]

(No, I was not quite sure what you meant. When you can I would be
glad to have you tell some things about that trip, but don't hurry.)

[I intended by this question both to express the uncertainty which I had
felt about the reference to that Western trip when it was made and to divert
his mind away from it to the other trip, though intimating that I would be
glad to have something about this trip in 1861 when he could give it again.
I seem to have succeeded in the diversion, though apparently a second
thought brought about confusion worse confounded, and this would be
natural enough on a second thought, because " that trip " is an exceedingly
equivocal expression. I am not surprised at the confusion that followed, and
saw very soon why and how I had caused the muddle. — J. H. H.]

Yes, but it was she who made my cap, and you had better ask her about
it. [Allusion to maker of cap correct. — J. H. H.] Sarah. SARAH.

(R. H. to S. : Let me . . . ) [I was about to say "Let me speak."]

Let me see what is it I wish to say. . Ellen (Allen). (R. H. : What is
that, Mien f What is that, Ellen ?) [Assent.]

help me. Oh help me to [R. H. puts leather spectacle case and brown
knife on table, next to hand. Hand moves back the knife and retains the
spectacle case.] recall what I so longed to say. My own mother Nannie. I
, . . wait. I will go for a moment, wait for me, James.

[The confusion here I interpreted as due partly to the nature of my
equivocal question and partly to the attempt to give my stepmother's name.
The words my "own mother, Nannie," suggested that he was trying to get
some way of making himself understood in regard to my stepmother's name,
as Margaret was the name of both, and later this name was given by G. P.
[See Note 77, p. 524.]

(Yes I shall wait. Yes I shall wait.)

Yes, very well. Yes, I do. [Between Sp.]

H., did you send for me. What is it ?

(S. to R. H. : That's George, isn't it ?)

Yes. I am coming right back.

I think, James, you mean when we met with the accident, do you not ?
[This shows what 1 am responsible for in my equivocal reference to the
trip, and my failure to make clear with whom it was connected. I thought

Digitized by

480

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

the next statement would clear it, but the answer shows that he thought br
had already referred to the trip I had in mind. — J. H. H.] '

(No, not the accident. You took a trip with Hettie's mother just bef***
you went out West. It was that to which I referred.)

Well, I am sure I liave told you of this before. Think it over and you will
recall it. I am not sure I mentioned her, but I had it on my mind when I
referred to the trip I took just before going out West, do you not recall

it ? [S. is about to speak.] (R. H. to S. : Sh sh) [Hand turns

to Sp.] [Qf. p. 421.]

(R. H. : George . . . ) [S. about to speak again.] (R. H. toS..
Sh-sh.)

[I do not recall that any previous references to this trip were recognisd
by me at all, though I did explain that the statements made regarding a tnf
•West were equivocal enough to apply to two of them that I knew about 1
shall have to re-read the first four sittings at least, and possibly some of tai
five by Dr. Hodgson to determine this matter. This confusion and pertupf
lapse of memory on my part ought to create charity for alleged spirits vh
have difficulty in remaining near the " machine." — J. H. H.] [See Note H
p. 525.]

(R. H. : George, there is apparently some confusion still remaining in ^
spirit Hyslop's mind about Hettie's mother in the body. He has not ji
given her real name. Perhaps you can see just what the cause of ta
confusion about her is.)

[This statement by Dr. Hodgson is interesting partly for its niisund^
standing of my mind and intention at the time and for the confusion whic
it was calculated to produce, as it did, and for the later explanation as
reproach of G. P. Dr. Hodgson did not know, and the necessity of ni
burdening the record at the time with my reason for my conduct in »
pressing for the name prevented me from telling him, that I was satisfc
with the right relatUm expressed in regard to my sister and the cap niadei
her mother, and that 1 was trying to run father's mind to a trip wbrt
incident* would serve ti tine evidential purpose. Dr. Hodgson of course di
not see this, nut knowing anything about the trip nor about my purpose, to
thought I was utill trying to get the name when I was not. In the eni
however, thanks to G. P.T the matter was somewhat cleared up, but tl
confusion at this time at ill continues to show itself, though father makes a
interesting attempt to dear it. —J. H. H.]

It was not he speaking then. [Letters like in made here above bet**
he and qpeofctft^] He had gone, H., but it was another spirit present just l
he left, but he is coming nearer and will be quite clear presently . . *
. . Be.

Yes, [with Sp,]

But there i« apparently Mime reference to a trip which h&s not b&
clearly 0 D. (Yes. IUD.)

Has he ever heretofore referred to any trip ?

(I am not quite certain except once. I think he referred once to a trip
took with Iri iu out West, hut I mentioned the other one in order to identil
my stepmother with whom he took a trip just before he moved out West.)

I see, well, I will assist him, do not hurry.

Digitized by

XI.]

Appendix III.

481

[This is an interesting piece of comprehension by G. P. The spontaneous
^cognition of the situation and cause of the confusion is a wonderful bit of
ridence for independent intelligence. He saw exactly what I was aiming at
od how my reference to one trip was confused with another. The whole
iterference of G. P. at this point and immediately following, indicating an
idependent consciousness of the confusion, is a most remarkable phenomenon
d any hypothesis except the spiritistic.

In talking to Dr. Hodgson about this sitting after I had written my notes,
od in explaining what was in my mind when I was pushing my inquiries
bout the western trip with my stepmother, I found that Dr. Hodgson had
lisunderstood the import of my language when talking to G. P. and thought
was still seeking for my stepmother's name. Hence his inquiry for this at
later stage of the sitting. But my sole purpose was to get my father to
liking on a trip of whose details I knew nothing, and in using the word
1 identify " I merely wished to suggest to G. P. my purpose in asking for
icidents. I did not mean to demand a name. But it was natural for Dr.
lodgson to make this mistake, as we had talked over the propriety of asking
n this name as we went to the sitting. The circumstances explain our own
infusion and afford a legitimate excuse for the confusion evident on the
ther side. And it tells against telepathy with great force, because, if that
rucess can catch so easily what confuses us, it ought always to have caught
lie things in my mind and which I wished to have stated. But in no single
ase has my present thought been caught in a situation like this and
aimed off as father's. — J. H. H.]

Yes, this is . . the one he referred to was the one with yourself
yes, which interrupted his thought somewhat . . somewhat.
Perfectly correct and interesting in the way it explains the interruption.

I feel the necessity of speaking as clearly as possible James, and I will do
ay best to do so . . B.

Do not try just now ; wait a bit. [Not read at once.]
Wait a bit. (S. : " Wait a bit.") Wait a bit. G. P.
[R. H. had interpreted the first " wait" as said.]
Not said. Wait a bit.
(R. H. : All right. I understand.)

I think I will let you speak now and finish what you started to say.
It was Aunt Nannie. (R. H. : 44 About Nannie.")

About Aunt Nannie. I thought it all over about the cap when I spoke
)f her. I say I . . .

(The cap was not made by Aunt Nannie. You told me rightly a moment
igo.) [See Note 79, p. 526]

You are not U D me, James, let me explain . . I thought of H
...HAR...H..

No, go on.

I thought of my mother and aunt my sister both at the same time, and I
wanted to say that both of their names came into my mind as you spoke of
Mary here, and I got a little confused about it. [Cf. p. 432.] I am all right
now. I wanted to say something about our visit to her also.

[See Note 80, p. 526.]

-J. H. H.]

482

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

(R. H. : George . . .) [R. H. was about to say to G. P. that there
seemed still to be some confusion.] (S. to R. H. : That's going right. I
understand every bit of it.) [I said this with reference to the explanation
about names rather than the other incidents. — J. H. JEL]

[Hand listens to R. H.] what [hand returns to R. H. to listen.]

(R. H. : All right. Never mind.)

And between the visit to the boys and Aunt Nannie I got confused i
little. (Yes. I UD perfectly. I U D perfectly.)
Well, we saw George. We saw George and Will.

Now what did I . . oh yes, I then arranged to go out there to live,
I . . [Pause.]

[This will require investigation. — J. H. H.] [See Note 81, p. 526.]

How are you, James ? + sent me to speak a moment while father go*
out and returns. I am very glad to be here again. It is I, sister Annie.
(Good morning. I am glad to hear you again.)

I perhaps can help you a little, James. I shall be glad if I can. Do yoo
remember . . do you remember anything about Birds, (Very little.)
about anything I did ? (Yes, I remember only one thing that you did. I
was very young at that time.)

Yes, but I remember the birds very well. (I am glad to hear it.)

Will you ask auntie if she remembers the one I caught (R. H. \
"brought?") [Hand dissents] (R. H. : "bought?") [Dissent.] caught
(I shall ask her.) [I know nothing of this. — J. H. H.] [Cannot be verified,
as inquiry shows. (November 3rd, 1899.) — J. H. H.]

and the flowers I pressed. Will you ask her for me ? (Yes, I shall ask
her.)

I think it was yellow in colour . . Yes. [to reading.]

[I remember nothing of this incident, but it is interesting as against tltf
telepathic theory to know that when this question was asked me by thfl
sister at a previous sitting I made inquiry of my aunt and she replied that
she knows nothing about it. The telepathic power would not return to this
if it could divine what condition of mind I was in on this matter. — J. H. H ]

[See later note (p. 425) in which I mention the probability that tba
incident of the pressed flowers is true. They were purple pansies with yeWot
centres (May 7th, 1901).— J. H. H.]

and I had a little pin holder I made when I was in the body. I think
she has it now. [No one can remember anything of the kind. (Novembe*
3rd, 1899). — J. H. H.] (I shall ask her. -*I shall ask her.)

I hope so. Here comes father and I am going now.

I am here once more and I am thinking about the trip I took with
HAt . . [Hand dissents.] H A R ... No. [S. shakes hiJ
head negatively.]

^ TOris is still not clear to me, and evidently the shaking of my head was
►reted as indicating that I was not getting what I wanted, and &
~ot, though it did not occur to me that the visit mentioned previously
tstion with the same letters was the one in mind. — J. H. H.] [S#
527.]

speak of other things. Will you try and tell me exactly what
\ H. to S. : I will.)

Digitized by

Appendix III.

483

(R. H. : Rector or George. There seems to be . . .) [Hand turns
suddenly to Sp., then makes gesture of assent to Sp. and listens again
to R. H.] (a locus of confusion with reference to James's stepmother
still. . . )

Not so, it hath nothing to do with mothers of any sort, but it is . . .
Mother [the previous mothers misinterpreted as botJiers and troubles] . . .
but it hath to do with trips, which is confusing him somewhat, and I
would not worry him about trips, but let him answer when he returns again.
(R. H. : Yes.)

Then he will have it quite clear. But refer to something else.

(R. H. : One moment, Rector, please. Perhaps before next time you can
kindly look specially at this point, because the name of . . . because
the name of the mother in the body has never yet been rightly given.)

Has it been asked for ?

(S. to R. H. : Better say stepmother.)

(R. H. : The stepmother has been referred to in various ways, for example
as Hettie's mother. She has also been called Nannie, but her name is not
Nannie.)

Well, there would certainly be a mistake in that because they all know
better here that that . . than that, because Nannie in the body only
acted as a mother to them after the mother of these children here came
here, and that must be why if they referred to her as mother Nannie. [A
perfectly correct way of stating the facts. — J. H. H.] [See Note 83, p. 527.]

(R. H. : No, Rector.)

I cannot U D it.

(R. H. : There have been several references to incidents which were true
about the stepmother, but in referring to these things, the name Nannie . .)

(S. to R. H. : Aunt Nannie) [R. H. looks up challengingly at S.] (S. to
R. H. : Nannie — right.)

[Notice this lapse of memory on my part and mistake in regard to what
was said at previous sittings. Dr. Hodgson was right, and I had been the
very person to call his attention to the distinction between " aunt Nannie "
and 4 * Nannie" as implied by the incidents and their connection. My
interruption and error thus resemble very closely many of the cases in which
we attribute mistakes to discarnate spirits and dispute their existence on that
ground. We must admit the possibility of the same psychological problems
on the alleged other side which we can discover on this. My own experi-
ments in the identification of personality illustrate this very clearly. —
J.H. H.]

(R. H. has always been mentioned when any name at all was mentioned.)
[S. had in previous conversation emphasised to me that Aunt Nannie had
been correctly used,*but that Nannie without the Aunt> had been used,
wrongly, for the tepmother. — R. H.]

Well, why do you not come out and say give me my stepmother's name
Mid not confuse him about anything except what you really want ?

(R. H. : I think" that it has been asked for directly, but cannot be sure.)
(S. : Yes.)

Has it ? Very well, if she has a name you shall have it. G. P. U D.

2 I 2

Digitized by Google

484

J. H. Hydop, PU).

[PABT

[The exquisite humour of this is past all praise, coming as it does after the
reproach for my mistake, or Dr. Hodgson's, according as G. P. interpreted iu
The reproach was followed by explanation on our part and a statement that
we had done as here requested, and the recognition of it, with the
penitent and humorous promise to satisfy us, is a remarkable exhibition of
intelligence which it would be hard to attribute to Mrs. P. 's brain. — J. H. H.]

(R. H. : Yes . . One . . I have drawn special attention because 1
thought it might help you to know that there seems to be some pemiwr
difficulty about getting her name.)

I do not think so, H. ; but I do think he would refer to it in his own way
if let alone. I know how you confused me, by Jove [not read at once] and 1
don't want any more of it.

Jove . . by Jove . [still not deciphered.]

I know how you confused me, by Jove (R. H. : "By Jove." Yes, I
have it) and I don't want any more of it.

I am going to help him and he is going to tell all he knows from A to Z.
No doubt about it, H., no one could be more desirous of doing so than be
is. Is that clear to you ?

(R. H. : Perfectly clear.)

Well, when he gets ready, out it will come, and there is no use wondering
about it. I see him now, and he is anxious to say something.

I hope you U D about the different names to which he has referred, if
not, better ask him to explain about them first of all, (R. H. : " explain 0
yes . . and there is no need of any mistakes except that this is a littfc
difficult for him, i.e., to speak fluently and freely.

[The same general observations as in the last note could be applied w
this whole passage from the end of that note to the beginning of this. Such
pertinent and clear indications of an independent intelligence could hardly
be imagined, though not founded upon evidential facts such as I have beefl
seeking. The memory of incidents connected with Dr. Hodgson and the
comparison of the present confusion with that which Dr. Hodgson bad
produced in the same way is a remarkably interesting bit of intellect ua3
appreciation, indicating true facts at the same time, and with it the " By
Jove," coming as a little stroke of personal character, indicates, or goes to
indicate, that there is only one simple theory of the phenomena. — J. H. H.]

Did you hear what I said about Robertson, James ?

[This reference to " Robertson " is possibly an interpolation by my uncle
Carruthers (Cf. pp. 310, 317, 332). (January 9th, 1900. >-J. H. H.]

(Yes, I heard something about him once before, but it was very little.]
Well, you know what I mean, don't you ? (Yes, I know clearly if you mean
my brother.) I explained it I thought afterwards. (Not quite fully, but
don't worry about it. Go on as you wish.)

Do you remember what I said when you told me about the dreams and
what answer I gave you in regard to it ?

(No, I have forgotten that, but I think some one else may remember it
who was present.)

I said there were doubtless a great number of these cases when summed
up they . . summed . . would be of great importance in trying to explain
a life elsewhere, but they seemed to indicate it. Don't you remember it now t

XLI.]

Appendix III.

485

indicate . . [not read above.]

Do you remember it now, and one of our own family had an experience
some years ago. Do you remember anything about this either ? (Yes. I
remember that. Can you say which one had that experience?) [I was
thinking of the incident told by my stepmother in the conversations on
psychical research. (November 3rd, 1899.) — J. H. H.]

[I remember our talking about coincidental and premonitory dreams, Mrs.
D.'s having been the subject of our talk at the time already mentioned, but
I do not recall the instance of his remark as here indicated. Nor do I know
anything of this experience by my uncle " Clarke " referred to a little later.
But when I said that I did remember it I had in mind the experience,
mentioned in a previous note, of my stepmother's father or mother, I forget
which, on his or her deathbed, as it was referred to by my stepmother on
that occasion. But evidently father was distinguishing between two different
cases. — J. H. H.]

I intended to [N. B. : too] and I wanted to remind you of it before, but
I was too far off to say it before I came here. I have often thought about it.
in fact we have spoken of it together since I came here. I mean since
I passed out. [Change to spiritistic lingo interesting. — J. H. H.] It was
Charles who came and took my place before I had time to finish it. I will
try and finish it before I go. And he saw the light and spoke of it before he
came here, James.

Oh dear, I want to say a great deal more and cannot they give us more
light.

[Hand bows as in prayer.]

[I never heard any mention of this incident until at this sitting. It is
not spoken of as mentioned and discussed in the conversation here in mind,
and I never talked with my uncle about the subject of psychical research, so
that he could not have mentioned it to me. — J. H. H.]

The light is not so good this day as we would have it be, yet we will help
give it.

I am still here, James, and I am thinking about the experience your
uncle had before he came here. It was your uncle who had it, and we have
often spoken of it together here, James.

(Yes. That is the uncle who married your sister Eliza.) [I asked this
question for purpose of identification, as the name Clarke is not correct. —
J. H. H.] [Hand assents.] yes, Clarke. And it was a notification of his
coming suddenly. He often refers to it.

Is this clear to James, friend ?

[R. H. motions to S. to speak.] [I understood by this that Rector
wished to ask me if James would understand the significance of the
" notification," as I did at the moment, remembering a statement made to me
in 1897 by the Imperator group that the spirit always knew some time before-
hand that it was about to leave the body by death. — R. H.]

(Yes, that is clear. Yes, that is clear.)

[When I said the statement was clear I meant that I understood what my
father meant in regard to the nature of the experience, and I supposed that
the question presented to Dr. Hodgson was meant to see that he should see
that I understood it. But it seems to have been an interpolation of Rector'

486

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

directed to Dr. Hodgson, and referring to previous statements of Rector to
him about premonitions of sudden death. I had never known of this fret.
It is Rector's wish, understanding the situation and meaning as he does, that
I appreciate the full significance of the phenomenon as well as the statement,
and to see the interpolation thrown into the narrative in this way, with the
intelligence that it shows, is a fine piece of work and difficult to explain on
any theory but the spiritistic. — J. H. H.J

I did wish to say this when I was referring to it last time, but as I say I
was t<m far off. I remember very well the facts and you must. Do you
remember his father, James ! I do not think you do. (No. No, I do not
remember his father.) I have met him here once. (S. to R. H. : * * *
[not heard by R. H.] ask for his name.)

I hope to be able to tell you a great deal more about them, as I think you
did not know what I can tell you. [See Note 84, p. 528.]

I will speak for a moment, and say I do not see any reason for anxiety
about Margaret. [Correct name of my stepmother. — J. H. H.]

(R. H. : Who says this 0 George.

(8. : Margaret is right. The rest of it. Margaret is right. Can you tell
the rest, George i )

He said I suppose I might just as well tell you first as last and
have dime with it, or James may think I do not really know. Go
tell him this for me. You see I got it out of him for you, H., but you
no need to get nervous about it, old chap. (R. H. : All right, George,
thanks. )

Well, I cannot hold him any longer, and you will get more later.

[This is another interesting display of evidence for independent intelli-
gence. The mechanical play of secondary personality has no resemblance to

natural appreciation of a situation and interchange of ideas here indi-
cate!, if* i1, gotifl a way with father to get the name of my stepmother,
talk* aUmt it juHi as anyone would who had done as here indicated, and
chnJfs t>r. Hmlg*>n Ur getting nervous about it ! ! This is a psychological
miracle, like much else in this sitting, if it is not the work of an indepen-
dent nitvUigetioe,— T, H. H.]

1 . . . { It. ft. : Yes. Good.) am glad to meet your friend even
though you fail to nay anything about him. I am . .

(S* to R, H, : t knew his brother in Columbia.)

George lY!ki.M mi glad to see you. I will stand by you at all costs.
i \ am jtfail Ui HK*et you, especially as I know your brother in Columbia
University, ) U . diaries. (That is right.)

[TW jUMiupt nu unon of the brother that I know and the mode of address
fcluri follow* l* auuOier interesting play of intelligence. — J. H. H.]

Good. Ml you again. Auf Wiedersehen. (R. H.: Auf Wiedersehen,
old chap. ) ( A ii f W i ^lersehen.)

Wv would **iy Uie light is failing fast. (R. H. : Yes.)

cannot remain longer with thee this day. (R. H. : And the time

in iwaco and worry not. (R. H. : Kindly send the light back

thco + {R.}

Digitized by

Appendix III.

487

[Mrs. P.'s sublinj.]

[Inarticulate] * * *

Margaret. Margaret. Margaret. * *

Last sat ? (S. : Last Saturday ?) (R. H. : What was that name 0
that's that's. (R. H. : Margaret what f) That that was . . that's it.
Oh, dear, I saw Rector. I saw Rector and a lady.

Yes, that's funny, they kept whispering, whispering it all the time until
Rector turned.

[Margaret is the name of my stepmother, but it is also the name of two
on the other side. Hence Mrs. P.'s allusion to the lady with Rector
prevents my interpreting the name given as intended for that of my step-
mother who is still living. — J. H. H.]

Introduction.

The first indication of the trance to me to-day was a slightly dreamy
look and far away gaze for a few seconds. Then Mrs. P. seemed to
become a little more lucid and moved her head a little, following this
act with the statement : "lam going to send those to Mrs. M. to-day."
This referred to some instructions about proofs of her photos by Dr.
Hodgson. They had been examining them and talking about them
gome five minutes before, and the voice when uttering the sentence was
a little dreamy and weak. Presently she began rubbing her face with
her hands, and yawning. This was followed again after a little interval
by rubbing the face and eyes, with arrested coughing. Presently she
said in a very contented tone of voice : " I don't mind going to sleep
any more." Then her mouth opened slightly and after a short silence
a strange dry hacking and short cough was made. This was just
before the head fell on the pillow. — J. H. H.

June 8th, 1899.

Record of Sitting, June 8th, 1899.

Prof. J. H. H. and R. H.
[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]
I don't mind . . I don't mind going to sleep . . . any more.
(R. H. : You don't ? It's pleasant, isn't it ?)

[Rector writes.]
HAIL. (R. H. : Imperator and Rector.)

Hail thee, friends of earth once more. (Hail to thee, Rector and
Imperator.)

We are glad indeed to be with thee this day. We have many duties to
perform this day, and a few words of advice and a few explanatory remarks
to make for thy better U D of our friend's confused condition. He
with his thoughts full of things concerning his last memories at the m<
before, and could not be made to U D that he should speak of other thitf

Digitized by Google

488

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Consequently we sent our helper to instruct him according to his U D of the
way in which he could best express himself. Besides the light was a little
low, -u id under such conditions we cannot do our best.

i i \ h is an interesting account of the confusion the day before. It is,
*«f Dour**, nothing more than we knew in general, or could surmise, but it is
mih» of those little touches of intelligence and fitness of speech that make up
the problem in these phenomena, on any theory we propose to adopt. —
•P. H. H.]

Wti now advise that we meet thy earthly friend no more until after we
hxvn Featured the light as we have previously stated to thee, friend. Other-
wise we would prefer to go on with him for a time longer. (R. H. : Yes, I

ILIMliT^tand.)

But after we have arranged our work [{] and through prayer and other-
w lhl* restored the light }, bring him to us again, as it will be of great help
t'i his friends on our side, and we ask thee to be wary and rest thyselves
until we are prepared . . wary . . to meet thee again. (Yes, I under-
stand. Rector.)

Ek yo not too anxious, but keep in thy memory the thought that thou art
not alone, and guarded thou wilt be throughout the silence of thy father's
j . li here. (Yes, I understand.)

1 it- Hove ye in the omnipotent and All wise God, fail not to send thy
h-non- thought to Him . . tenderest thought . . and He will guard
< thee in His Holy keeping. (R. H. to S. : [in low voice] Get away.)
[N, wiis stooping over so close that I could not get near enough to read the
wl ifiiii;.- R. H.]

P< >nder well, dear friend, and think not when absent of these as idle words,
but let their meaning be what we desire them to be. In other words throw
thyself in all confidence upon . . on [?] Him and there is not . . .
ask f< »r nothing more. + R.

[R. H. reads last sentence over. Hand dissents.]

{R. H. : " upon Him and") ask for nothing more . . (R. H. : "upon
Him riiid ask for nothing more.") [Assent]

Nnw, friend, whilst we are holding thy friends here ere they be allowed to
Hpe&k, ask for anything thou dost desire for thine own help. Also ask
anything which thou wouldst have us do for thee, no matter how difficult it
may seem.

( 1 w< mid ask you to be with me always and to help in this work. I should
nl w> like you to say how I should care for the body in order that I may carry
his work.) [Cross in air.]

We ask thee to think over seriously and earnestly what our teaching
l * l i k doth mean, and think that without His Will nothing can be. Have
charity for thy fellow creatures who hath been less blessed than thyself. (I
understand.)

aivil partake only of the liquid called water in thy world.
Km fruit fish . .

I The word cxdled above not read, and /neif read as freely.

He *aith called . . .

fruit, fowl [fowl not read immediately.]

bird, bread, and little meat. UD.

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix III.

489

To us this is a most important thing as we see and are conscious of what
thou dost need. (Yes. I understand exactly.)

We are pleased, if thou wilt follow our instructions thou wilt have health,
strength (R. H. : " health and strength.")

It will not fail thee. And we ask thee at the closing [colsing] of each day
to thank Him for His watchfulness over thee. (Yes, I understand.)

(R. H. : Rector, do you mean by water, to exclude, for example, tea or
coffee or chocolate or mineral waters ?) [Hand dissents.]

No, none of these so-called . . or milk.

(R. H. : But all alcoholic ?)

absolutely. [Hand bows as if in assent to Sp.]

Yes, the stomach is not strong, and from a worldly point of view it should
not be overtaxed. [True and pertinent. — J. H. H.] We know all, even the
most minute things concerning this body, also its spirit. U D. (Yes, I
understand perfectly.)

We desire spiritual growth and perfect health of mind and body. (Yes,
I understand the necessity of this.)

Thou art well developed in a vast number of ways, but in order to carry
out the laws of the Supreme Being thou shouldst go on and live in the
highest possible light, and by so doing thou wilt not only be helping thine
own life, but the lives of all God's children.

Keep thy body clothed, fed, and thy mind and thoughts in the highest.
(Yes. Yes, I understand this.)

Let it be thy guide daily, and at the closing of one of thy so-called years
come to us and speak of the results. [S. seemed about to speak.]

Listen, friend.

Care for no mortal other than to help him.
(Yes, I understand this.)

In other words, live in the thought that thou art a part of God and that
that part is the man. U D. (R. H. : Yes.)

At the closing of each day relax thy mind and body, and rest from thy
earthly work.

[A perfectly pertinent piece of advice which I have often had given
me, and which I have wished to carry out, but the large tasks created
by my work have generally prevented it. I cannot treat it as more
than a coincidence, but it deserves to be mentioned as that at least. —
J. H. H.]

Speak, as we have much to do in other ways, while the light doth burn
this day. (Yes, I shall be glad to consider all these things.)

If there is any one thing of which thou wouldst ask advice or for help,
speak now.

(I think I shall not ask father to-day. I can receive this some time in the
future.) [The word father above should be farther. On reading over these
notes on the day of the sitting it occurs to me that Professor Hyslop may
have meant fa rther, although I supposed him at the time to mean father.
He says that it should be farther. — R. H]

and . . all well.

I have nearly repeated [requested] all right as He gave it me. R. . ,
repeated.

490

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

[This whole passage giving me both physical and spiritual advice is an
interesting bit of by-play in this business, and will be interpreted by most
persons as a piece of presumption. It certainly has a most humorous side
to it. Spiritistic proselytising from the other world is a new kind of propa-
ganda, unless we accept similar attempts on the part of less accredited mediums
than Mrs. P. But it repeats the advice given to Dr. Hodgson and followed
by him with no special tendencies in him that I can observe toward dissolution
of body and soul. However, I am not concerned with either the correctness
of such advice or the possible effects of accepting it, but with the dramatic
play of personality which it shows, in connection with the previous promise to
give the advice, and with the humorous aspects of its proselytism. — J. H.H.]

I see George and Mr. Hyslop coming now with our leader.

[Slight perturbation in hand.]

I am here, James, once more.

(Good morning. Good morning, father ; glad to hear from you.)

Good morning, James ; I am glad to hear good morning once more, and I
am quite near to-day. [Hand moves towards R. H.]

I know your father very well. (R. H. : I am very pleased that you have
made his acquaintance.) [See sitting of February 16th (p. 389). I had
asked Mr. Hyslop to become acquainted wi th my father. — R. H.]

I find our minds were not quite the same when on earth, but our ideas of
God tvere.

[This is quite a correct statement of the relation between the beliefs of
my father and those of Dr. Hodgson's father, in so far as it can be determined
by a comparison of creeds. My father was a strict Presbyterian Calvinist
and Dr. Hodgson's father a Wesleyan Methodist, and so Arminian. (J une
10th, 1900.)— J. H. H.]

You see they have told me that James is going away, *and I want to know
you and have you take my messages for me sometimes.

I am glad you U D me better, James. Are you going home soon ?
(Yes, I am going home in about two weeks.)

I want you to feel that I shall be there also, and I will remind you of
some of things I see you do while there. Do you hear ? (Yes, I hear, and
shall be very glad indeed to have you do that.) I will repeat them to our
friend here. (R. H. : I shall be very pleased to take them.)

I shall watch you very closely, James, and when you are talking to any
member of our family I will remind our friend of it, and what I hear you
say. (Good, that is fine. Good, that is fine.)

You will see that I will prove that I am with you still, even if I cannot
always speak my thoughts.

Do you hear me ? (Yes, I hear you perfectly.) Give me something to
think over and I will speak to you . .

(S. to R. H. : Is that something to hold ?) [R. H. nods towards bag
containing articles.]

Do you recall the books I referred to yet, James ?

(I think I do, but I shall find out when I see my stepmother.)

Will you ask her about the paper knife, not because I care for so trifling
a thing, only as a test for you ? (Yes, father, I have already asked her. She
remembers it and so does Frank.)

XLI.]

Appendix III.

491

I am glad of it because I like to get these things off my mind. I . . .
do you remember that Eliza's name was really Elizabeth ? (No. I did not
know that. I am very glad to find it out.) She was named Elizabeth as a
child, and as time went on we began to call her Eliza. (Good. I am glad to
learn that. That is a splendid test.) And you cannot mistake it, James.
[See Note 85, p. 528.]

There was a Henry [?] McLellan also. I think perhaps you may know of
this. (No, I did not know of it, but I shall certainly inquire.)

he was . . he was, I think an uncle of our McLellan boys . . Yes,
(All right.) let me . . . let me see . . .

[I did not recall at the sitting that this name had been given before (see
sitting of May 29th) and hence my negative answer, but I see now what it
means, and the relationship is correct. It is possibly an attempt to give the
name of Dr. Harvey McClellan, who is an uncle of the McOlellan boys.
(Cf. p. 422) — J. H. H.]

[I have made careful inquiry and have found that the " McClellan boys "
had no uncle by the name of Henry, and that their uncle Harvey is the only
person who can answer to this probable attempt at his name (June 10th, 1900).
—J. H. H.]

What did I tell you about Jennie a short time ago ?

(We only got the name, and I could not make out its meaning. We only
got the name, and I could not make out its meaning.)

Let me see . . . I think . . HAR . . . MARGARET
had some relative of [written above after whom was written] whom she used
to speak as Jennie, but I won't be sure of this, as I cannot quite remember,
but I think she did ... I think she did.

[This about Margaret and Jennie is not clear to me, in fact is meaning-
less.—J. H. H.] [See Note 86, p. 529.]

I thought of it several times, but I could not quite remember. You see,
James, I was not wholly conscious when I came here, and I suddenly thought
of every one of my dear ones the moment I awoke. I go over and over
them in my thoughts daily, and I often wonder if they know how near I am
to them. I want you some time to talk with me as we used to talk together.
(Yes. Yes, father, I think I can say a few words now.)

[Hand listens to Sp. and then makes cross in air.]

I would be so glad to hear you, as it will help me to keep my thoughts clear.

(Well, I shall talk a few moments about some earthly things that have
happened since you passed out. I bought the house in which you lived out
West in order to avoid expenses with the courts.) Oh, 1 U D well. I am glad.

(George is still on the northern land.) and will be I fear. [Perfectly
pertinent.— J. H. H.]

(Well, we shall see what we can do with it.)

I will be on the look out and see what 1 can do by using my influence
from this side of life. I may do much.

(Very well. I shall be glad if you can. You . .)

[Hand starts as if to write, then returns to listen again.]

(You will remember Harper Crawford, I think.) [Excitement in hand.]
Yes I do, very well. What about him ? I have tried, and tried, and tried to
apell his name for you, but I could not seem to articulate for their U D.

Digitized by

492

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

(Yes. I understand perfectly. I shall mention another, too. Do you
remember Robert Cooper ?) Certainly I do, very well indeed, and I have
intended to speak his name for you also, but tell me about the mortgage.

[This reference to a mortgage in connection with my cousin Robert
Cooper is very pertinent. He was badly handicapped by debt at the time of
my father's death and had his farm heavily mortgaged. — J. H. JEL]

(I have not heard about it, but shall learn this summer.) And then let
me know about HARPERS (Harper Crawford, you mean ?) [Assent.]

(All right. I shall ? do so.) [I did not catch the word missing.
— R.H.]

I want to know this one thing only. Are they doing anything about the
ciiurch ¥

yes only [re-reading of sentence above.]

(What church do you refer to, the church in your old Ohio home 1)
[Assent.] (I have not heard but shall inquire.)
They have put in an organ . . Organ.

[R. H. turns from his note of S.'s remarks to read the writing, and sees
that the wrier of the words is not clear.]

(R. H. to 8. : When WM that written?) [pointing to the yes only]. [S.
indicate* that ye* only was written first.]

They have put in an Organ, James. [I know nothing of this. — J. H. H.]
(Very well. I k1ih.11 look that up. Do you mean the first church ? Do you
mean the first U, P. church ?)

I cannot seem to get that, Jame«. [Hand listens again.]

(Do you mean the first United Presbyterian Church ?) I cannot get that.
Can you say it for me slowly ?

(Do you mean ... do you mean the First United Presbyterian
Church 0 Say the two last slowly . . got it all but that.

(United) yea. (Presbyterian, Pres-by te-ri-an.) Yes, I do.

(Very well. I understand. You say they have an organ now)

I »ay yes.

Very well (1 shall he glad U* find out about it.) Yes, but I am telling

you,

(1 uri(k i>l eh i . ;£<••- K will be a good test.)

Well, it is so, James. [See Note 87, p. 529.] Tell me something more
a Wit Guorge. He always did look out for number one.

(Yes. 1 cannot tell very much about George, because, as you know, he
very seldom writes letters. You understand.)

Yes I think I do, perfectly well. [S. laughs.] [Avery pretty recognition.
— J. H.H.]

(When I come back here again I think I can tell you many things about
him,) Yes, but, Jauiua, I know ti great deal myself and did worry . . worry
, » as you tiitwt kmtv. . Worry as you . . [Correct. — J. H. H.]

(Yes, 1 understand, and you know / worried much also.)

Fe*. Wlu> could know Mter than I do f Remember what we talked
over when you came out there. (Yes.)

IVdt. I can say only one thing, do not . . not . . worry any more
about him or anything else. (No, I will try not to worry.)

[See Note 88, p. 631.]

XLL]

Appendix III.

493

And about the fence [fense] I am thinking about the tax I left. (R. H. :
"about the fence ? ") Yes, fence [fense],

(The tax has been paid. I settled that all right. Nearly all the debts
have been cleared off. We owe only aunt Nannie a little.) Oh what a relief
to my mind. I have thought and thought and thought what would Frank
or George do if they had a hand in it.

[This is terribly pertinent. My brother Frank is an invalid, and it is
pertinent that he was named in father's will as one of the executors.
My brother George was always so busy and so slow to answer letters on
matters of business that the two facts explain this allusion very clearly,
and all that has previously been said about him. — J. H. H.]

[See Note 89, p. 631.]

Do you remember what you did for me once ?

(I am not sure just now, but if you will remind me)

in regard to a tax one year. It was what I wrote to you [the to crossed
out] . . It [I] was what I wrote you about . . about . . and you
actively helped. (I do not remember it, but you must not be surprised
because I helped you so often with money you remember.)

Yes, but about . . dear James, do you not remember just before I
came here I was not well at the time and I wrote to you about the tax. I
should never forget it. (I do not exactly recall it, but I think it most pro-
bable, because I know just what the situation was.) Well, it will come back
to you, I hope, as it will live with me for ever.

What about the fence ? Do you know what I mean ? (I think I do. I
know that we have repaired the fence.)

All right. I intended to have it done before I left, and I also had this
on my mind. (Yes, that is now all straightened out.)

[The reference to the taxes and the fence is pertinent, very pertinent
indeed, though it is possible that the instance of the fence is a little equivocal.
I know that father was exercised about the time of his death about the con-
dition of the fences on his farm, and that when I with my brother assumed
our executors' duties we had to look after this matter and to settle some
accounts connected with father's orders about it. But I also know that my
brother Frank had urged his removing the rough fence about his house in the
West, and my brother once told me, if I remember rightly, that he thought
father was about persuaded to accept this course. I am less certain, however,
about this part of the matter than I am about the needs of the fence on the
farm in Ohio at the time of his death, and our completion of the work.

I do not remember any correspondence about the taxes to which he refers.
I think I have his letters, and may find whether the statement is true or not.
But the facts are these. The wheat crop had completely failed, and the
previous corn crop had brought very little, so that father had absolutely no
money to either pay the taxes or to live on without borrowing, and no man
ever hated more than he to borrow money when he saw little chance of
repaying it. He was also very prompt and scrupulous in paying his taxes,
but this time the want of money prevented his paying them, and the date
for paying them without a penalty was nearly up. It was about the 26th or
27th of August. He took sick about ten days previous to this, and died on
the 29th. I found out by calling at the tax office a day too late that the

494

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

penalty could not be avoided, and I never told father this fact. But
when he mentioned his situation on his death-bed I told him not to worry
about it, that I would see to the matter, and I paid the taxes after the funeral
and before I left for the east.

But I can hardly think that the language of his statement here can be
correctly interpreted as referring to this incident of his condition at the time.
It apparently refers to some other occasion about the same time. But I do
not remember any particular incident regarding it. I know only that father
was very anxious about the taxes at the time of his death, and that I promised
to see that there was no trouble about them. As here said to him, I so often
helped him when he called on me, and I was so busy with my work at the
college that I remember no special occasion of such help, except after his death,
and this does not seem to be pertinent. — J. H. H.] [See Note 90, p. 532.]

Do you know how you are helping me unburden my mind ? I shall be so
glad when these things are off from it.

(V ery well. Do not worry about things. They are in very good order.
Remember, we had very hard times when you passed out . . . ) (R. H.
to S. : Not so fast.) (But the presidential election) (R. H. to S. : Wait a
minute.) (turned in favour of better times.)

What turned . . what turned ? (The election of Mr. McKinley.)

Oh, I U D ; the president, you mean. Did you say election ?

(Yes, that is right.)

Oh, I U D perfectly. I could not at first U D the words election and
President ; they seemed so muffled . . muffled, James.

(All right. Do you remember how you shook a walking-stick to my
cousin about that time ? Do you remember how you shook a walking-stick
or cane to cousin Robert McClellan about that time ?) [Excitement in hand.]

Well I do, I never was more excited in my life I think I was right too.

[True. Father was as much interested and excited about the issues in
that campaign as he was about slavery during the civil war. I remember in
speaking to him about the issues of the campaign that he threw up his hands
and exclaimed as best he could with his lost voice, "you can never reconcile
debtors and creditors." The expression, "I was right, too," is perfectly
characteristic. Both the phrase and the tone of belief are his. Father
knew when he was not certain about political and economic problems, and
if he found something to be true which he saw disputed, he would break
out in this way when he expressed his conviction and the satisfaction of
his mind. The recognition of my question is also interesting.

My cousin Robert McClellan had called to see him in this his last illness.
He asked father on which side of the political question he sided, the issue
being between the gold and silver parties. Father's voice was too weak to
speak and seizing an opportunity for a display of humour, he reached for the
walking stick which I had given him some time before and on which was fixed a
beetle in representation of a "gold bug," and shook it, laughingly, toward
my cousin. My cousin saw the point, and had a hearty laugh about it. I
heard the fact from both of them and from my mother afterward. — J. H. H.]
[See Note 91, p. 532.]

(Well, who gave you that walking-stick ?) [S. touches R. H. to draw his
attention to hand.]

XLI.]

Appendix III.

495

[Forefinger of listening hand is tapping on left temple of S.]

You did, and I told him about it. [indicating R. H.]

[This was as dramatic a play of personality as I ever witnessed, as well
as being absolutely correct in regard to the facts. I did give him the cane,
and from the reference to the curved handle in the sitting with Dr.
Hodgson (p. 397) I had inferred that, if we were to treat the communi-
cation as intelligible add true, it was probably this 4 'gold bug" cane that
was meant. Hence the pointing of the hand toward Dr. Hodgson con-
firms my conjecture. — J. H. H.]

[Later inquiries slightly modify the statement about the "absolute"
correctness of the message, but leave it mainly correct. See Note 92, p. 533
(May 7th, 1901).— J. H. H.

(Yes, I thought so. What was on it ?)

What was on it ? I think I know that it had the little top [?] I . .1
think it had the little ring [?]

(S. to R. H. [in a whisper]: not quite. )

(I think I know what you mean by that. That is near enough. Do not
worry. You recall it well.)

[This attempt to draw the beetle or "gold bug " which was on the stick in
lieu of struggling with the name was another interesting performance, and
suggests the resources which have to be adopted for accomplishing the
purpose of the communicator in embarrassing emergencies. — J. H. H.]

[My discovery in the West of the curved handled cane which I had for-
gotten, which had been mended by a tin sheath or ring, and which the mimic
incidents in the sitting of February 22nd (p. 400) fit more accurately than any
other supposed stick makes it necessary to admit an equivocal meaning in this
symbol. It might be taken to represent this tin sheath or ring and the
manner of fastening it on the broken part of the cane. But for a more
detailed examination of the facts I must refer the reader to Note 92, p. 533.
(June 10th, 1900.)-^!. H. H.]

I will refer to it again later. (All right. You remember it was connected
with the campaign.)

Yes, weU, and I remember the talk I had with R. about the President.
[Correct incident and initial of the name I had mentioned a few moments
before.— J. H. H.] [See Note 92, p. 533.]

EE** [undec.] Ellen. (R. H. : Ellen ? Ellen ?) Eln . . E
Helen . . I tried to give it to Rector. I will when I go out.

It has . . I wonder if your mother has got that old chest . •
chest . . I had when I left it had . . (R. H. : "when I left it.")
when I left. [Period strongly marked.] It had some clothing in it. I
bought it at an auction I think years ago. (Well, I shall ask her. I do
not know just now.)

Do you not remember of seeing it up on the attic [attic not read.] (R. H. :
Again, please.) attic floor [?] near the stairs . . stairs, just as you
go up.

on it.

496

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

(Yes. I think I remember very well, though I am not certain, but I
think my stepmother Maggie will know.)

Yes, but ask . . and ask her if she didn't put the stick in it. (I
shall ask her.)

I want my stick. I mean [or near ?] stick. It was my stick, I mean. I
mean [or " near I mean "] and . . do you hear ? (Yes. I hear perfectly.)

[I remember a good old chest father had, but where he got it I do not
know, and it is barely possible that I saw it in the place mentioned, but I
have no recollection of the fact. — J. H. H.] [See Note 93, p. 534.]

And there are many things I wish to refer to later, James.

(Very well, I shall be patient about all these things.)

Well, I hope so, because it is not as clear to me as the man who is kindly
helping me.

(R. H. : Rector, perhaps he'd better go now.)

I am being called myself by our leader and he will have more to say.

(Well, father, it is a great joy to have been here again. And when I
return we shall have much more to talk about. In the meantime) (R. H. to
S. : Not so fast.) (I wid take your love to all I see.) (R. H. to S. : No, I
can't follow. Stop !)

You will give my love to Maggie, Nannie, Eliza. Oh, she is not there,
but take it to her.

[This is a correct list of the names to whom father would be most
interested in sending his love ; the first is my stepmother, and it is by the
name she was always called. But I had purposely used it a few minutes
before, and the only significance that can now attach to his mention of it is
the fact just mentioned regarding his natural interest, and more especially
the correct distinction of place implied in the exclamation : 44 Oh, she is not
there, but take it to her." My stepmother does not live where my old home
was, and father had already been told by me that I was going home, as the
reader may remember. My aunt Eliza does live at the place of this old
home, and my aunt Nannie is always visited on the way to it. — J. H. H.]

Goon. I am going away now. (Good-bye, father. Good-bye, father.)
James, good-bye. God protect you, my boy, and may [you] be well and
happier. (R. H. : " May yon be well and happy.") I am going. I will go
with you.

Friend we cease now and (R. H. : Can't read.)

May God's blessings rest on thee + {R} + Farewell. (R. H. : Amen.)
(Amen.)

[Several inarticulate sentences.]
TellHyslop . . . father.
Imperator says tell me to take it.
I want the tall one.
Yes. I'll tell * * [inarticulate].
Isn't that lovely !

Oh, that's . . that . . that's Imperator.
That little gentleman took the flowers off with him.
That's my body . . it prickles.

[Mrs. P.'s sublim.]

Appendix III.

497

I add here the final references to myself and my father as given at
the two last sittings held by Dr. Hodgson before Mrs. Piper rested for
summer.

[Rector writing. Sitter, R. H.]

J\dy 3rd, 1899.

* * * And to thyself and Hyslop we would say one word. (Yes.)
Fear not the scorn of mortals, but serve (rod in all things, remembering that
nothing can be without His will. (Amen.) * * *

* * * (First, I have a message to send to Hyslop's father. He says
that his father was right about the fire incident and the religious controversy
with "friend Cooper," so that he may put those off his mind.) Amen, this
will help him much. (That is all about Hyslop, specially.) Yes, but there
is much for him to do and look up yet, and his father is assisting him
silently. (Yes, he is hard at work and will be most of the summer, writing
and thinking and inquiring about it.) + All well in so doing. It will be
the only way by which we can prove to him absolutely the true fact that his
father is alive here. (Yes. He is faithful and persistent.) There must not
be any neglect of duty in regard to this, viz., the broken wheel, the visit of
the sister to church, the prayer meeting in the bam, the sunstroke of one of
the McLellan family. U D. (Yes.)

Good day, I am off. [I then realised that Hyslop Sp. was there.]

(Good day, Mr. Hyslop.) God be with you. (Amen.)

I would say one word more only. Some of the things date back many
years. (Yes, I understand.) Adieu (Adieu.) * * *

Latest Notes to Appendix III. ; Sittings from May 29th to

The following notes are made from answers to personal inquiries made in
the West whither I went for the purpose of investigating the statements made
in Boston and of which I knew nothing myself. I took full notes of the
answers and remarks made by all persons who were connected with the names
given at the sittings or who could be expected to know anything about the
incidents mentioned.

Note 37. — As this Maltine incident was the only one in the whole record
that appeared on the surface of it to indicate a fact known to me and not
common to the supposed knowledge of my father, I thought it necessary to
examine into it. I knew from my observation in all the sittings at which I
was present that Mrs. Piper had not seen the box to which I have alluded ir

July 6&, 1899.

June 8th, 1899.

J%dy 21df 1899.

New York, November 8th, 1899.

498

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

her normal condition. But I did not know whether Dr. Hodgson1 had con-
cealed the box from her as effectually as the articles it contained, and hence
as an alternative to telepathy we could have the possibility of an admission
to the subliminal through the supraliminal, though this was more than
improbable in the sittings personally attended, and inconsistent with all that
we know of Mrs. Piper's recent trances. I had then to reckon with the
possibility that it was obtained telepathically, assuming that it was not a
medicine that my father would use for his disease at all. Hence I considered
the coincidence with reference to what I knew of the medicine and the box
in question. But not knowing what my father may have taken I did not
permit the incident to go uninvestigated. Hence I wrote to my brother,
stepmother and sister to know whether father had ever taken any Maltine or
contemplated taking it. The answer of my sister and stepmother is that
they do not know positively, but very much doubt it. The answer of my
brother is as follows : —

Bloomington, Indiana, November 7th, 1899.
My dear James, — Received the questions from you to-day and reply as
soon as possible. No, father did not use any of the Maltine. But while I
was visiting at Will's, mother wrote that he was losing flesh. This showed
that he was not getting sufficient nourishment from his food. And as I knew
that Maltine was a good digester and tonic I wrote and advised father to get
some and use it. But he did not do it. However, it is likely that he had
some talk about it at the time of my writing to him about it. — Love to all,

Frank E. Hyslop.

This case turns out then somewhat like that of "Munyon's ....
Germiside." It was a medicine which he was advised to take and most
probably contemplated, and so comes near enough to specific incidents in his
mind while living to prevent any dogmatic decision in favour of the exclu-
sive application of either the telepathic theory or that of Mrs. Piper's accidental
knowledge filtered into the subliminal. The fact that my father would at
least know the name of this medicine could not be given any weight in an
apology for spiritism, but the specific place which my brother's advice would
have in his mind would naturally occur to him or anyone else trying to think
over the efforts to stay the disease with which he was suffering, though we
must wonder why he did not name a more familiar medicine which I

1 1 was careful in all my own sittings not to unwrap the box labelled Maltine
until Mrs. Piper was in trance, and to wrap it up again before she came out of the
trance, and I believe that prior to the incident in question the box was never within
the field of Mrs. Piper's vision. I had also inferred from something th»t Professor
Hyslop had either said or written to me that this box had nothing to do with his
father.— R. H.

Though I did not state in so many words, as my letters show, to Dr. Hodgson
that the Maltine box had nothing to do with my father, the only rational meaning of
elaborate statements describing packages that I sent him for use is exactly what he
suggests here. I indicated the relation of the Maltine box to the experiments in
three separate letters which I still hold, namely, one of January 2nd, one of
January 31st, and one of February 3rd, 1899. I described it as merely containing the
articles which I sent as having been used by my father.— J. H. H.

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix III.

499

had in wind when I put my question, but which he never mentioned at all.
Whatever the difficulties in such a fact and in spite of the circumstance that
we cannot apologise for the spiritistic view by emphasising the possibilities
of this reference to Maltine, yet they are great enough to preclude any
attempt to insist on telepathy as the exclusive alternative, especially if we
are of rmitted to use the reference to " Munyon's .... Germiside "
as an automatism.

Note 38. — When the name 44 Nani " was given here, I supposed that the
intention was to mention my aunt Nannie, as other notes indicate in similar
situations. But after the large number of cases in which the name Nannie
without the qualification "aunt" was used most probably, or certainly, for
my stepmother, it is more natural to put this interpretation on the use of
that name here, especially as she was the one who would be most likely to
remember the way he used to read his paper. But I refer to the case again
because another fact has occurred to me that may explain why the mistake
of 44 Nannie " for 44 Maggie " may have occurred. Rector must be supposed
to know that my own mother was with my father 44 on the other side." But
nothing had been said to indicate to him that I have a stepmother, until the
attempt was made in the sitting of June 6th to get the name of my step-
mother correctly. In this attempt it will be observed that Rector recognises
at once the absurdity of calling my mother by the name Nannie, as he at
once explains that they know better over there, inasmuch as my Aunt Nannie
had only acted as our mother after the death of my real mother (p. 483).
This had of course been intimated in an earlier sitting (p. 449) in a message
from my father, and Rector might have inferred it from my statement in the
letter from me to my father read to him by Dr. Hodgson (p. 400). Rector's
mind was thus in the situation to apperceive messages referring to my step-
mother under the name 44 Nannie." But I cannot insist upon this way of
looking at the facts because the mistake was committed in the name at my
first series of sittings where we cannot suppose that any intimation from my
side had been given of the relation between my aunt and domestic affairs.
Hence it must be treated as the usual mistake of 44 Nannie " for 44 Maggie "
by the trance personality. — J. H. H.

Note 39.— The latest notes of Appendix II. (Note 29, p. 410, and Note 30,
p. 412) reveal the results of inquiries that cleared up the interpretation of
the Cooper incident and show at the same time the source of my illusion in
the note made at this sitting of May 29th (p. 421) regarding the name John.
Moreover I had explained the pertinence of the reference to 44 John" only
tentatively, as I had no assurance that this John Cooper was not living,
But I wanted the apparent significance of the coincidence to be seen, on
any theory possible in the case, as it actually represents what I shoulc
have expected father to mention in connection with Samuel Cooper ano
when I consider his specially kind feelings and sympathies for John Coopci
in his mental nusfortunes, in spite of the alienation between himself and
the father of this John Cooper. But having found that this John Cooper
is still living, the scepticism indicated in the note of May 31st is confirm*

October lbth, 1899.

500

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

while the discovery of an extraordinary pertinence in the reference to "the
Cooper school and his interest there " removes the difficulty that I felt and
expressed in my first note on the case. There was also a misrepresentation
on my part of the first mention by my father of Cooper after my question
sent to Dr. Hodgson. (See sitting of February 16th, p. 386.) The
distinction is actually drawn there between the Cooper I had in mind and
this Dr. Joseph Cooper that father evidently had in mind, but my complete
ignorance of this latter person made me assume that I was either dealing
with a confused memory or with the complexities of secondary personality.
But the fact that father had known of a "Memorial School" for this
very man, the pertinence and relevancy of the allusion to philosophical and
religious discussions with him, and the removal of the difficulty in connection
with the name " John" show a perfectly definite unity in this allusion
here in the sitting of May 29th. The following facts will explain the
source of my father's knowledge regarding this school and the importance
of the reference to Dr. Cooper and the incidents of the sittings.

My father had taken the Christian Instructor ever since its organisation
some seventeen or eighteen years before his death. It was edited by uiy
uncle, the husband of my aunt Nannie mentioned in these records, and who
had suddenly died seven weeks before my first sitting. Dr. Cooper took
sick in the year .1886, and the fact was mentioned in the columns of the
Instructor. He himself, conscious of being on his death-bed, as indicated by
the language of his letter, wrote to my uncle a short letter on his views of
the resurrection, and it was published in the Instructor of July 29th, 1886,
with a lengthy editorial by uncle in reply, taking issue with Dr. Cooper's
view. On the date of August 26th the paj>er gave a notice of Dr. Cooper's
death in Cleveland, Ohio, on August 22nd, in a prominent article. On
September 22nd a phototype memorial of Dr. Cooper was offered to sub-
scribers by the editor. In the issue of December 2nd mention was made of
the college at Sterling, Kansas, and also on December 9th. Cooper Memorial
College was mentioned by name on the dates of January 20th, 1887, and
November 3rd of same year, and then special attention called to it by name
in a considerable article on September 20th, 1888. I did not examine
farther into the record of the paper, as the conspicuousness of all the notices
is ample evidence that my father most likely obtained his knowledge of the
" Cooper school " in this way. All the notices were as prominent as
editorials.

It is perhaps worth observing that my father's allusion to the philosophic
discussions and correspondence may be confused references to the correspond-
ence of Dr. Cooper with my uncle, as the subject was the resurrection and
immortality. The misunderstanding would probably be Rector's. The
mistake, taking the exact language of the record (p. 397\ as it bears rather
upon the question of communication, would be considerable, but it is con-
ceivable that it might occur.

One of the most interesting features of the incident, after ascertaining its
pertinence to Dr. Joseph Cooper, is the reference to " a journey which we took
together." The " Memorial School " which I have mentioned as having been
built in memory of this man, was situated in Kansas, whither my father and
stepmother went on a journey in 1884, and it is a pretty case of association

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix III

501

to note even that a journey is mentioned in this connection, though my
stepmother's name is not mentioned with it. A similar possible interest
attaches to the mention of the name Lucy, as discussed in the next note.
(Note 40.) My note (p. 421) shows, however, that the connection here
might imply that the journey was either with this Cooper or with myself.
There is no specific mention or reference to my stepmother under
any name. But the journey as a fact was never taken with this
Cooper, and the rapid movement of thought all along here from one incident
to another makes it unnecessary to make the associative implication that the
journey was with this man, while the law of association would be correct on
either assumption regarding my stepmother or myself : for it was on the
journey with her in 1884 that father visited the State in which the Cooper
School was afterwards built and visited me in Chicago on his return (Cf. Note
53, p. 507), while I took a journey with him West in 1861. But the more
natural association here would be my stepmother. Assurance that this is
the meaning is wanting for the reason that no name is mentioned. It is
interesting, however, to see that a natural and pertinent connection of
thought is discoverable in the passage, even though we cannot regard it as
evidential in specific characters. — J. H. H.

Note 40. — My stepmother tells me that she had a cousin who was always
called Thusie, her full name being Arethusa. Father visited this cousin in
Pennsylvania with my stepmother. The only reason, of course, for putting
any possible meaning on this incident is the following. (1) The previous use
of ** Nannie" for my stepmother, as finally shown by the reference to
"Hettie's mother ' in the cap incident. (See sitting of June 7th, p. 478.)
(2) The easy mistake which might occur in the regular difficulties connected
with proper names, especially when there is some resemblance between
" Lucy " and " Thusie." (3) The fact that the right relationship is stated in
the message, if the interpretation of the name be correct. (4) The refer-
ence to my brother Frank in this connection associating him with a visit.

It was while reading the proofs that the fourth point in evidence occurred
to me. It came to my memory like the vague recollection of a dream that
my father, together with my stepmother, had paid a visit with instead of to
my brother Frank in Pennsylvania, and I inquired to find that I was correct.
But this was in 1873, one year after my father's second marriage, while the
visit to my stepmother's cousin was in 1882 or 1883, when my brother Frank
did not accompany them. Have we here confused remnants and associations
of both visits ? It is to be noticed also that this second visit was just a year
or two before father made the trip West with my stepmother, and while he
was thinking of moving West. Have we then in the later allusion to having
mentioned a trip West with my stepmother (p. 480) any reference to the
present message ? This later allusion looks too much like an echo of my
question, as the reader will observe, to entertain this conjecture with any
confidence, but if we could suppose that the later spontaneous mention of
this previous reference was less confused than it may be, and was not a
suggestion, the induction in favour of the present possibility would be more
plausible. But it can in no case be evidential. It depends on supposing

502

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[PART

that "Lucy" is a mistake for " Thusie," while the supposition that
the reference to "Nannie's cousin" is a different mistake from the one
assumed makes the case a possible reference to Lucy McClellan, and not
what is here imagined. — J. H. H.

Note 41. — On investigation I find that my sister Anna died when she was
nearly three years old, and we are hardly entitled to suppose on our ordinary
knowledge of psychology that she would remember such an incident as is
here mentioned. Besides, we knew of no "Allen boys." There were no
Aliens in our acquaintance. If we could suppose, however, first that we
have an abbreviation for * 4 McClellan" in the word "Allen," as that name
and relationship figures here so frequently, and would fit, and second that
the incident is gotten in the same way that my brother Charles got the
chimney incident, there might be a possible meaning to the case. But it
certainly cannot be verified, and has all the probabilities of ordinary
mediumistic phenomena against it. — J. H. H.

Note 42. — My impression regarding the disposal of this horse was correct
I wrote to my brother regarding the matter, and his answer is as follows.
The sj)ecial pertinence in the mention of this horse lies in the impetuous
character and excitable nature of the horse, always terribly afraid of the
whip, and the perpetual reminders which father used to give us not to excite
him with the whip or to overwork him. This was very frequent after the
horse became windbroken. My brother's account of the death and burial
of the horse explains itself. When he wrote the letter he did not know-
that I had to publish it, though its humour is not out of place.

Poor old Tom is dead, and was given a decent burial near the creek on
the Savel farm. I do not know whether he was shot when he became feeble
or just " went dead," but I was the sexton who officiated at his funeral, and
I know that he was put four feet under the ground with his heels up. I do
not know any more about " de-tail " except that he always turned it over his

Note 43. — Father's habit of reading his paper in this rocking chair was
confirmed by my stepmother and it continued up to the time of his death.
The chair was a favourite of his, and had been long in his possession. — J.H.H.

Note 44. — I find on inquiry that my impression here was incorrect. I
remembered very distinctly special arrangements in connection with his chair
when sitting up during his last sickness, and inferred the probability, though
doubtful of it as my note shows, that a stool had been used. But in the
process of stating that the incident as I supposed it is not true, my step-
mother remarked that during the last years of his life father suffered from
cold feet, and that she had provided him with a stool on which to place his
feet while wanning them at the stove, but that he always refused to use it,
preferring to put his feet into the oven for his purpose, and shoving the stool
aside. The mention of the name Nannie again in this connection has its
pertinence and confirms my conjecture in the case. — J. H. H.

Deshler, Ohio, May 31**, 1899.

back.

George L. Hyslop.

XXI.]

Appendix III.

503

Note 45. — If I were entitled to stretch things in this mention of names,
especially in connection with the clear name of my brother Robert, I could
give some meaning to them, for the next older brother is named William
Wallace. But the confusion is too great to say more than that this interpre-
tation is not impossible, though we must have sufficient evidence of auto-
matism and meaning in such instances elsewhere to justify any tolerance for
the possibility. — J. H. H.

Note 46. — Inquiry does not make this incident of the injured foot any
clearer. None of my brothers suffered such an accident. It may be that
later notes on the recurrence of the same incident will suggest a possible
interpretation to it, though I have no confidence in the matter, and would
be the last person to suppose it evidential in any case. (See sittings of
May 31st, p. 444, and June 1st, p. 450.)-nJ. H. H.

NoU 47. — Since writing the note on father's constant habit of reproving
me for hard work I have read his letters to me since 1892, and they are full
of reminders that I was overworking. — J. H. H.

Note 48. — On reading this reference to a fire, which is said to have given
father a fright, to my stepmother and sister, both recognised its meaning at
once. Both remember the incident very distinctly that gave father and
themselves a very decided fright. They were returning from a social party
at a relative's, and saw evidences of a fire in the direction of the home, it
being toward evening. Father had always been afraid of fire in his large and
costly barn, and in his fear of this was persuaded to insure the barn,
after some hesitation about the legitimacy of insurance at all, his objections
to life insurance on religious grounds remaining, On this occasion they all
felt certain that the barn was on fire and possibly the home. A freight train
blocked the way of haste, but as soon as this obstacle was out of the way
there were many hysterical efforts to hurry home, and all the haste made
that was possible to reach the scene of danger, and they ascertained that the
buildings were safe only when they came over the hill near the house.
Father had several frights from this fear of fire to the barn when waking
from his sleep at night, and mistaking the moonlight for his burning barn.
Once he aroused all in the house only to find that it was an illusion caused
in the usual way by the moonlight. But from this story of the facts we can
readily see how his memory was likely to be affected by his experience, and
that his impression and fright, as here described, or rather alluded to, was
what it is represented to be. It is barely possible that I heard of the inci-
dent in father's letters of that date, which I do not possess now. But I was
not at home then.

It will be apparent to the reader who compares this case with the earlier
allusion to a fire, that there is a decided difference between them in their
detailed meaning. (See sitting for December 26th, 1898, and also of
February 7th following pp. 324, 372.) If there is any proof of instances in
which the communicator confuses a true incident beyond evidential recogni-
tion, the memory here of having referred to an incident which no one
recognised before would be indication of the fact, and may help us to suspect

504

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

that there is a basis of truth in other instances where similar confusion
mars the evidential value of an incident that is suggested as possible. —

Note 49. — Subsequent study of this passage, beginning with the name
44 Charles" and terminating with that of "John McClellan," suggests an
interpretation which is quite free from the difficulties indicated in the pre-
vious note. It was the result of Dr. Hodgson's remark to me that possibly
my question just preceding the message, 4 4 Brother John," was either not
heard or not appreciated, which is a very common thing, though it may be
taken up later. We have then only to suppose that there was no intention
to say 44 Brother John," as we should most naturally and perhaps justifiably
interpret the expression in all conversation where there are no difficulties in
communication assumed, but that a single communicator said or tried to say,
44 Brother and John McClellan," a part not being heard by Rector, or that
as Charles shouted 44 Brother" my father tried to give the name 44 John
McClellan," and I get the fragmentary result. The passage, therefore,
down to the names which stand for my uncle Carruthers becomes clear and
intelligible on either assumption.

But the names under which my uncle passes in these records followed
immediately and have to be interpreted either as an incoherence due to
automatism or a part of the intention of the communicator. We have then
the several possible interpretations of the intentions of the communicator.
(1) He may have been trying only to give the name of John McClellan, and
that of my uncle comes in as an automatism. (2) My brother Charles and
my father try together to give the name of John McClellan, and the
name of my uncle slips in as an automatism. (3) My brother and father
are trying to give the names of both my uncle Carruthers and this John
McClellan. (4) My uncle himself and my father are trying to give the
names of this uncle himself and that of John McClellan. (5) That in any
of these suppositions this John McClellan is present to assist in getting the
name of McClellan through.

The difficulty with the first hypothesis is that it cannot account for the
name 44 Charles" and the allusion to him as brother, if we assume that my
father is the only communicator, and on the other hand there is no reason
for the later statement that my father is speaking if we suppose that my
brother Charles is the only communicator. It is more natural to suppose
that they are both present assisting each other, as is often the case, according
to appearances and statements in these records. I therefore reject this
hypothesis as not the most intelligible one.

That the names of my uncle are not to be treated as automatisms in
either the first or the second suppositions is tolerably clear from three con-
siderations. First, in the sitting of the previous day (p. 422) my father had
tried unsuccessfully to give the names McClellan and Carruthers in suc-
cession, and the attempts were marked with a great deal of confusion,
whether we attribute it to him or to Rector. Second, just preceding the
present messages and attempts at these names, father apologises for previous
^fusion and asks that I allow him to straighten it out, an expression similar
le which he again uses later regarding the name of John McClellan

J. H. H.

XLI.]

Appendix III.

505

(pp. 448, 450). Third, the evident attempt in this same sitting of my cousin
(p. 428) to mention the accident by which my uncle Carruthers lost his life.
Hence the probability is that the object of the attempt is to give the names
uf my uncle and that of McClellan with a view to suggest a point de repbrc
about which my mind may work when messages are sent.

There are two suppositions, different in character, which still come out to
this same conclusion. As my uncle Carruthers was so often called " Charles "
we might assume that he was meant in the first use of that name. Or we may
suppose that it was really my brother, as indicated in the language. The
latter is to me the simpler hypothesis and consists throughout with the idea
that the effort is to give the name of my uncle Carruthers along with that of
McClellan. But as an interesting illustration of complicated confusion in
conjunction with merely fortuitously favourable conditions to produce
it we can show how it might be possible to explain the same con-
clusion by supposing that it was my uncle himself with my father at the out-
set, and not my brother. His name was pronounced " Crothers," the *" o "
being sounded as in " brother," and he was my father's brother-in-law. In
ordinary parlance, as well as in communications like these, "brother-in-
law " is often abbreviated to "brother" (Cf. p. 472). My question with the
word brother in it might be interpreted as asking for my father's brother-in-
law instead of my real brother, and the answer would be correct, supposing
my uncle's presence. If also we suppose, what is entirely possible, that
*' brother " in the message, " Brother John," is Rector's mistake of the name
'* Carruthers " (pronounced " Crothers ") we have an attempt to say possibly
"Carruthers and John McClellan," the first name becoming "brother" for
lack of clear understanding on Rector's part, he having his apperception mass
determined by my question with the word "brother" in it. This would
make especially intelligible the immediate mention of the names under which
this uncle had previously passed in the communications. That just such a
confusion might occur is well illustrated by the experiments through a tube.
Witness " turnips " for "gauntlets," " change " for "strange," " pry thee " for
"brother, ""thought " for "but," "murder"for "weather," etc. (pp.627, 631).
I doubt whether this more complicated interpretation is to be tolerated, but
it is interesting to find that it consists with the same conclusion as the more
simple view while it has the advantage of indicating the problems with which-
we have to contend in communications of this sort.

Note 50. — There is much obscurity in this passage referring to " cousin
Annie," and the names Hettie and Ruth. I cannot see why they should be
connected with the name of John, which I suppose to refer to old John
McClellan, unless we assume that he is acting as an intermediary for my
cousin Robert McClellan, his grandson. But assuming this, the reference to
cousin Annie would be correct, from the standpoint of my cousin Robert
McClellan, and the message would be somewhat like that from my brother
Charles at the next sitting, that of May 31st, when he referred to his " new
sister " (p. 440). The reader will recognise Hettie as the name of my half-
sister given a few minutes before the passage under consideration. Ruth is
the name of my cousin Robert McClellan's aunt, the deceased wife of the
Dr. Harvey McClellan I supposed intended the day before (p. 421), and

506

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

hence the daughter-in-law of this old John McClellan. The phrase, "She
is only a friend, I think," is apparently Rector's explanatory remark. It is
correct in fact, as this Ruth was not a relative of the family, but only an
acquaintance of my father. I never met her so far as I know. That my
sister should speak of her could only be intelligible on the supposition that
it was connected with conversation on the 44 other side " designed to hate
some communication made relevant to her husband still living, and in which
my sister was to figure as intermediary. — J. H. H.

Note 51. — In my original note on this passage purporting to come from
John McClellan, which was written in the fall of 1899 after the most
thorough investigation, I stated that I could find no relevance in it.
None of the names had any pertinence in connection with the only John
McClellan about whom there could be any plausible reasons for inquiry.
I said in concluding : 44 It is the only case in the whole record (save the
group of names in the first sitting) that does not yield some hint of true facts
or connections that might start an intelligible clue to something as a reason
for such an extraordinary grouping of names." But the circumstance of
trying to obtain documentary confirmation other than the History of Greene
County, Ohio, for the service of John McClellan in the war of 1812, led to
the discovery of the true facts. The details of this discovery and of the
inquiries that resulted in it are given in a later note in connection with the
incident of the lost finger. (See Note 94, p. 636. )

But the facts pertinent to this passage ascertained during the process of
inquiry are that the John McClellan who is apparently meant here was not,
so far as I can learn, a relative of the McClellan family with which I am
directly connected, but a citizen of another part of the county in which
I lived, and who died in 1850, four years before I was born. Hathaway was
the name of a cousin of John McClellan's son-in-law and probably associated
with the family. The connection of the Williams with John McClellan
has not been so definitely traced as yet, though Mr. Jamison, nephew of
John McClellan, recalls the name as that of connections with his uncle.
My information puts their association probably as far back as 1825.

The most puzzling thing al>out the passage is to conjecture why I should
hear from this John McClellan at all. He was, of course, personally
unknown t<> me, as the date of his death indicates, and neither being a
relative, near or remote, of myself or the McClellans, that I knew nor even as
much as heard of by the oldest of the surviving McClellans that were my
relatives, I cannot imagine why such a person should turn up. I could
propose all sorts of excuses as to the reasons on the 14 other side " for such
appearance, but they would have no weight. I can only remark that my
grandfather on my mother's side, and hence my mother also, lived in the
general neighborhood which was the home of this John McClellan, and may
have associated with him or his relatives. But this must have been long
before my father's marriage. (January 5th, 1901.) — J. H. H.

Note 52. — Since writing the note in the l>ody of the detailed record
(p. 438) I have been able to clear up only one thing in it, and a hint
toward this result was given in the message and correction by my uncle

July 30th, 1900.

XLI.]

Appendix III.

507

James McClellan in the sitting of June 6th. I have since ascertained that
this John McClellan, whom I had in mind at the time, and because of this
fact directed my statements and questions accordingly, is still living ; in fact,
I called on him for information regarding incidents and names connected
with statements here made. But the correction of June 6th (p. 471) makes
clear who was meant, so that the John McClellan spoken of all along was a
correct name, but I had never known any one by that name, so far as
I could recall, except the one just mentioned. But it is apparent, as I
suspected at the time of the sitting and afterward, that my cousin Robert
McClellan appears in the question, "Do you know where Frank Hyslop
is," as his interest in my brother Frank while living would prompt him
quite naturally to inquire in this way about him. The John McClellan that
I had in mind might also naturally make a similar inquiry, because he and
my brother knew each other at the same college that I attended, of which this
John McClellan was the treasurer. He knew that my brother had lost his
health. Hence, assuming that I was dealing with one whose decease I did
not know, I pressed questions with a view to testing telepathy. The
whole passage, however, contained too much confusion, as I understood it at
the time, either to form any clear idea of its possible meaning or to estimate
its bearing upon theoretical questions. But the sequel of my investigations
shows that the passage obtains a better unity than I had suspected. (See
p. Ill and Note 94, p. 535). It is necessary also to remark that there is a
college in the village near where my cousin lived, about which he and I
had some correspondence regarding my stepmother's going there to
live after father's death. Hence my question and the statements made
are relevant enough, only I have not yet ascertained any truth or
meaning in the references either to my brother's being "at the library
and sending books over to him," or any other "Frank" in the same
matter. It is apparent, from the nature of the statements, that the
mention of my brother Frank is an association elicited by the name of
another Frank in mind whose identity I have not yet been able to trace, and
it is still more interesting to note that he adds the surname 14 Hyslop,"
in order to distinguish the one Frank from the other.

Note 53.— I have now to reverse this note indicating that the statement
about the visit would be pertinent if it had been as that note indicates.
My father did visit me in Chicago in 1884, but not "just before" he
died. But the most interesting feature of the fact is that I had wholly
forgotten this visit, so completely that I cannot recall a single incident of it
and would not believe it were it not that my stepmother and sister who
were with father at the time, and my sister-in-law also, confirm the fact beyond
question. It was on their return from the visit to Kansas in search of a place
to which to move, the plan being changed in 1889 to go to another State. I
was teaching near Chicago at the time. I had just returned from Germany
where I had been for two years, and as father had gone on this Western trip
before I returned home, and had not seen me until on his way home, which
lay through Chicago, I seem to have gone to the city and stayed all night at
the hotel with him and my stepmother and my sister, and the next day
to have taken them to a panorama of the battle of Gettysburg, all of which

tt>8

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

I have totally forgotten, and have to accept on the testimony of the thr^
parties mentioned.

I do not refer to these facts to show the pertinence of my father's stab
ment, but to show a most interesting defect of memory on my part, as bti
the psychological relation of the remark and the allusion to the visit beii
*' just before he came here," indicate that the reference is to the subject <
our conversations on the question of spirit return with which he closed k
communications a few minutes previously (p. 438). Compare a similar em
later in the same connection, which was spontaneously corrected (p. 474).

Note 54. — Further study gives this communication a possible or probsbi
meaning which I had not suspected before. It did not occur to me at first t
interpret "side " as implying a blood distinction instead of locality. But j
we suppose this to be the intention and that my cousin was speaking of b\
own mother, as of course is most apparent, we have a very clear ad
correct message. My cousin's mother was my father's sister, and his stef
mother was my mother's sister. As I never knew his mother it was im*
natural for him here to indicate who had spoken the name in order to prerefl
me from thinking it was his stepmother, who is also not living. It appear
thus that his own mother is represented as acting the part of an assistant a
intermediary to effect the communication of the name Lucy. The suppositki
of blood relationship, however, in the use of " side " involves supplying J
omitted pronoun t>efore the word * ' father, " referring to my rather. Thj
would make the message as follows. " (My) mother said it (Lucy) only I
moment ago and she is on (your) father's side, and he comes and speaks of \ti
(Lucy) often.'' This would be equally correct in regard to previous comnie
nicationa and in regard to the natural relationships in the case. — J. H. H.

Note 55. — Information which I obtained personally in the West inaktj
this whole passage quite clear, and unravels the confusion which I remarks
in my previous note. When "aunt Nannie" was mentioned I thought <J
my aunt Nannie whom father had mentioned and who was also the aunt J
my cousin, Robert McOlellan, who was communicating, and hence I treated
the cousin Nannie mentioned as his sister, but I found her still living
Hence the passage appeared to be absurd, especially when I reflected on tb<
statement that this " aunt Nannie " was said to be my cousin. But whei|
calling attention to some of the absurdities of communications of this kin<j
to my cousin, Nannie Stephenson, the sister of the cousin communicating, i
alluded to the contradiction in the passage here, and though all her convictions
were decidedly against spiritualism, genuine or spurious, she suddenly anq
to my surprise exclaimed: "Yes, but brother Robert always called m^
4 aunt Nannie,' especially during the last few months of his sickness." Thi^
was probably in deference to the habits of his children. His sister had
spent much of her time with him nursing him during this sickness. This
statement of his sister's at once threw clear light on the passage. It must be
remembered also that I knew nothing of the facts here narrated. I did not
know anything about his illness, except that he was ill, and would not
recover. The letter I wrote to his wife to inquire and to express interest in

Digitized by

Appendix III

509

case was never answered, and no one else as much as told me the nature
he disease.

It is clear then that this "aunt Nannie," who was his sister, was rightly
I by Hector here to be my cousin, and then the statement that she was
L in the body becomes correct. But then the 44 cousin Nannie " who, as I
ad her in mind, was his sister, is still living, so that the statement that
:>usin Nannie is in the spirit " becomes false apparently. But it is
aible that my cousin said " cousin Annie," and that the proximity of the
ne to the writing of 44 Nannie" referring to his sister, made the machine
te ** Nannie" over again (Cf. Footnote, p. 238 and Note 95, p. 536).
is might easily occur either as a phonetic or a mechanical mistake. Now

sister Annie, one of the communicators in this record, and to whom
tuppose the 44 cousin Nannie" referred, was the full cousin of Robert
;Clellan, the present communicator, and hence assuming this reference
have been his intention the statement would be correct. But it would
kke the answer to my question absurd, unless we suppose, as is possible,
%t what was in my mind and language was correctly understood, and that
i own reference to "cousin Nannie" (cousin Annie) was ignored, as we
iy well suppose him ignorant of the machine's mistake.

The confusion as it appeared to my mind was a natural thing in my
aorance of what my cousin called his sister, and it appeared worse as so?>n
I learned from my aunt that my cousin Nannie was still living, she being
id here to be 44 in the spirit." No difficulty attached to the statement that
ie was "Lucy's sister," because it is the habit of many people, and
pecially among those of the locality concerned, to speak freely in less
curate conversation of sisters-in-law as sisters. But the whole case is
ade clear by a knowledge of the communicator's habit of calling his sister
aunt" out of deference to the habit of his children, and by the possibility that
ie 4 * cousin Nannie " refers to his niece who is not living. It is simply a
tse of different apperceptions on the two sides, both being correct though
ie statements fit only one side. The point that must appear weak to the
iader is the interpretation of the " cousin Nannie" that is necessary to
lake it perfectly consistent and significant from the standpoint of the
ommunicator.

Another interpretation to this whole passage is possible, and in fact
esults in the same conclusion as the first, though it represents the unity of
he case in a much more complex form. It involves also more dramatic play
;han in the view of the previous note, with perhaps stronger evidence on that
iccount for the spiritistic theory.

If we go back to the appearance of my cousin and accept my conjecture
that he failed (p. 442) to finish his sentence in the attempt to say that he
wanted to reach 44 all his dear " relatives, we shall notice that the reference
to the name of his wife is Rector's statement after my cousin has been told
to 4 4 go out" and come again. Then Rector explains that the Lucy is not
Miss Lucy Edmunds, the sister of the Jessie mentioned, but some one
related to me. In the reply that he then makes to Dr. Hodgson's request
he states a fact which rather indicates that he thought this Lucy was the
one that 44 Annie and her father," these being my father and sister, had
brought with them several times to the communications. The fact was

,510

J. H. HysUrp, Ph.D.

[part

that this Lucy was still living, and my conjecture is that the one
they had brought with them was the communicator's mother, Mary
Amanda, sister to my aunt Nannie and my father, and mother to the
44 aunt Nannie" here called my cousin as explained. Rector's state-
ment, therefore, that 44 aunt Nannie will know well/ assuming that it
refers to my aunt by that name and mentioned throughout these sittings, and
who also was the aunt of the supposed communicator, my cousin, would
^till be correct and fitting, and it would not be necessary to suppose that it
was either a direct or indirect message from my cousin giving the form in
which he called his sister during the illness in which she nursed him. My
44 aunt Nannie" would know both this Lucy McClellan intended and the
*4 cousin Nannie," whether taken as a reference to my cousin by that name or
as a mistake for my sister Annie. She would also know the person said to
have been 44 brought here several times before," whom I have supposed to be
my aunt Nannie's sister and mother of my cousin Nannie, and who was
^always called Amanda. But it would be simpler and just as pertinent to
make the 44 aunt Nannie " refer to the communicator's sister, as the explana-
tion that she was my cousin would indicate, and this would involve do
Assumption of confusion. When Rector says: 44 She is a cousin of thine,
friend," he does not indicate whether he means my cousin Nannie, sister i»f
the communicator, or the Lucy that had been mentioned, who is also my
cousin by marriage, being the wife of the communicator. My opinion is
tliat Rector, not understanding Dr. Hodgson's question, as actually indicated
refers to the communicator's mother whose name he could not get, but hoped
to suggest by the reference to the communicator's sister, here called 44 aunt,
as explained, and who was my cousin. But when I make my statement that
44 1 remember one cousin Nannie and one aunt Nannie," the reply shows «
better comprehension of the situation. The statement that 44 Aunt Nannk
is in the body" is correct, and if the statement that 44 cousin Nannie is m
the spirit " can be interpreted to mean my sister Annie, this is also correct, and
the next statements in response to my further < question as to 44 what relation
this cousin Nannie was to you," the communicator, were exactly correct froni
the standpoint of my earlier question in which I had my cousin by that name
in mind, the sister of the communicator.

Hence, on any interpretation, we either get what is false and inexplicable
by telepathy, or what is true from two separate standpoints and too complex
both in its truth and misunderstandings to be easily amenable to telepatbj
-as we know its operations. — J. H. H.

Note 56. — This passage has always remained psychologically puzzling.
There is nothing in the thoughts with which my father left the 44 machine " »
few minutes before to suggest the connection which my note in the detailed
record indicates. Nor is it materially connected with the communications
from my cousin, which it immediately follows. I had originally suppose!
that it was an attempt on the part of my father to resume matters connected
with the confusion about my mother and stepmother, occasioned by ttfl
statement just before he left. I assumed that the sentence 44 Don't yoU
remember Jter" came from him and referred to one of the two just mentioned,
But this may as well refer to the Lucy just indicated, no matter who th<

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix III.

511

communicator is, whom I now suppose to have been ray cousin who exclaimed
this just as he left the "machine." Hence we may assume that my father
either begins a new subject with the announcement of his presence, con-
nected with the McOlellan family and suggested by what he sees and hears
going on while my cousin is communicating, or that he is attempting in a
confused manner to unravel the threads connected with my mother and step-
mother. I could give a strained interpretation in favour of the latter
alternative, assuming certain mistakes, but it would not even then escape a
reference to the McClellans, as this connection is unmistakable in the
allusion to "John's wife" and the statement that she is still living. But
the accidental discovery that the name Sarah, a fact unknown to me, had a
direct pertinence for John McClellan's family opened the way to the first
interpretation as the more probable. This view is especially reinforced by
two facts. (1) The same grouping of names, with the exception of Maria,
at a sitting on February 7th, 1900, and not included in the present report.
(2) The indications on this occasion, and possibly in the frequent allusions of
the present record, of some solicitude for this John McClellan, which his
death about seven months later justified (Cf. Footnote, p. 471). Hence my
adoption of the note embodied in the detailed record (p. 444).

But all who are familiar with pseudo-mediumistic phenomena will remark
a very close resemblance to fishing and guessing in the names here given and
which seem to have the coincidental import which my note indicates or
suggests. I am far, of course, from regarding it as fishing of any kind, after
what I have seen in the Piper case, though I would treat it so in any record
not fulfilling the demands for evidence of personal identity in a better
manner than this. But while I cannot for a moment regard it as supplying
the slightest evidence of a spiritistic sort, I have described its possibilities
for the two reasons, first, that the fact shows it is not necessarily false, but
is possibly true in intention, and, second, to call attention to the resemblance,
in external features at least, to the phenomena of fishing and guessing. —

NoU 57. — There has dawned upon me, on re-reading the passage about the
injured foot, and remarking the capital letter " F " just before the hesitation
about brother Will's name, that instead of "injured foot" we ought to have
44 injured leg." This would apply very distinctly to my brother Frank, whose
initial is here given. It is apparent from my question, as stated in the
previous note, that I was after the accident which caused the death of my
44 uncle Charles," while nothing but "accident" was mentioned by my
father. Now it was an accident to his leg that was the occasion of my
brother Frank's loss of health. It was a heavy fall while engaged at
gymnastics in college. The injury was one that produced the same effect
in my brother's use of his leg that father's injury in the sixties produced
in his leg. I remember father's speaking of the resemblance before he
died. This he intimated in his letters to me. Hence it was the expres-
sion : " He got it injured and so did I " that indicated to me the
possibilities of the case, on the assumption that there was some confusion of
memory, caused partly by the conditions of communication (which cannot be
assumed in the evidential problem at first) and partly by the confusing nature

J. H. H.

512

J. H. Hysloi), Ph.D.

[part

of my own question, as it was not on a railroad that my brother was injured
But with all its possibilities the passage is not clear enough to be given the
slightest evidential value, and could only be explained on the spiritistic
theory after we had given sufficient evidence that confusion and mistakes of
this kind actually happened. There are unmistakable evidences of such
errors, whether they are so indefinite as this or not. Besides there are the
three facts in favor of the possibilities mentioned : — (1) The initial of brother
Frank's name ; (2) The recognition of the resemblance to his own injury ;
and (3) The hesitation about the connection of the injury with my brother
Will. -J. H. H.

July 11th, 1900. — Since writing the above note I have recalled the fact
that my brother Frank was agent for Dr. Chafe's Receipt Book and HoHscholt
Physician, and that it was while walking on his journeys to sell the book
that he broke down with spinal irritatiou and symptoms of locomotor ataxy,
due to this overtaxing of his energies so soon after recovering from his fall in
the gymnasium. If we could connect the allusion of my cousin to an injured
foot of one of the Hyslop boys (pp. 427 -8) with this reference to an intention
to be a doctor, we might, in spite of the confusion, imagine an attempt here
to speak of Frank's work, which was very suggestive of an itinerant doctor.
There is no excuse for this supposed possibility except the uniform confusion
of my cousin in his communications and the apparent evidence in these
experiments and others that association often seems to confuse and distort two
separate and similar events. I had asked for the accident to my uncle and it »
conceivable that reference to his injury may have been mixed up with the
thought of an injury to my brother's back and leg. That is I may get only
fragments of two separate events. I do not entertain the possibility of this
with any degree of confidence whatever. Nevertheless, I inquired of my
brother Frank if my cousin ever talked to him jokingly about his being a
doctor, and the reply is that on one occasion, just after his return from
college and after Frank had been canvassing for the book, my cousin
" chaffed " and joked him about being a doctor. — J. H. H.

Note 58. — There was so much possible pertinence iu the statement here
put into the mouth of my stepmother that even at the expense of a little
personal flattery I inquired whether it was true or not. My stepmother
writes in answer to the question whether she ever used such language regard-
ing me, as follows : — 44 1 have many times made this remark to your father
when we were both severely tried to know what to do, 4 If the children were
all like James and Frank we would have no trouble.' " The implied com-
plaint against the others in this and father's language is not so severe in fact
as may appear, for it really refers to the consequences of neglecting to
respond to father's requests and needs as promptly as should have been the
case. But I know from both my correspondence and from my memory that
father's worry on such occasions was considerable, as he was himself always
prompt in business obligations and disliked delay and negligence. My step-
mother's confirmation of the language here, then, shows how very pertinent
it is to the question of identity, and hence my justification for dwelling upon
such personal matters. — J. H. H.

XLI.]

Append ix III.

513

Not* 59. — The allusion to "a cousin John" here in connection with my
uncle James McClellan lias always puzzled me. I had a cousin John, but he
was in no way connected with the McClellane and there is not the slightest
indication here that I am dealing directly or indirectly with him. He died
when I was a very young child and I remember his death as having given me
my first shock in regard to that dread visitor. Nor is there any clear reason
to suppose that the person meant is the John McClellan in the earlier com-
munication (pp. 43 L and 438), as he was not a relative of either my family or
that of the communicator. I have ascertained one fact beyond my knowledge
at the time of the sitting and which reflects some light on the case and indicates
its possible connection with the John McClellan whom I know. I seem
to be communicating with my uncle James McClellan, as the messages make
clear. I learned from several parties in the West, members of the McClellan
family, that there was a sister Mary Ann and that she is not living. Now
it turns out that I knew her while at the university, but knew her only by her
married name, Mitchell. 1 knew nothing of her death so far as I am aware.
It may be that I once knew she was a sister of the McClellans. It is more
than probable that I did, and probable that I knew her name as Mary
Mitchell, but I am quite certain that I never heard the Ann part of it. —
J. H. H.

Note 60. — There is a matter of interest upon which I could not comment
at the time of the sittings because I was not certain of the fact that I
recalled when making my notes. I have ascertained by inquiry what I
thought was true ; namely, that my uncle James McClellan died of
pneumonia. This fact gives a singular interest to the message. I had in
mind my " uncle Charles," or " Clarke " as he is sometimes called, and hence
was trying to run down the incident that caused his death. But it is evident
from what was said about clearing up matters referring to James and John
McClellan, and from the statement that " Clarke " was mentioned for a mere
recollection, that father had my uncle James McClellan on his mind. Now,
the chief interest to be noted first is that this uncle James McClellan married
my father's sister, and so did also my u uncle Charles " or " Clarke" marry
another sister, the Eliza of earlier sittings. (See sittings of December 24th
and 26th, 1898.) Hence it is equally true of my uncle James McClellan that
he was related " only by marriage " to my father, and also truer of him than
my uncle "Charles" that he has been on that side "for sonic time." With
him evidently in mind the answer " pneumonia" to my question is perfectly
correct. The reference to the interruption by Charles, my brother, now
obtains a singular interest, as it is correct that he died with a fever.
(See sittings of December 23rd and 26th, 1898.) Now the allusion to
being " disturbed because of the accident " apparently denotes father's
discovery of the fact that I had my 44 uncle Charles" in mind, as is also
apparently indicated by the interruption of my brother Charles, the whole
passage at this point being part of the conversation carried on between
Rector and the several persons on the other side. They seem to suppose
that when I say 44 uncle Charles " I mean my brother, and that I am not clear
about my uncle. Hence, when brother Charles gets my inquiry here, know-
ing that I have made it before in connection with the name " uncle Charles "

Digitized by

514

J. H. Hyshqyt Ph.D.

[part

as I get it, he imagine** that I am asking for his illness still, and interrupts
with his statement about a fever, as the supposed answer to my questioa
My father, however, with a more correct suspicion of my misunderstanding,
and seeing that I have in mind my " uncle Charles " alludes to 44 the accident
that I (he) could not make clear." The passage thus becomes wonderfully
clear and interesting, if we can be allowed thus to reconstruct it consistently
with the facts, and with what we know of the sources of confusion in such
experiments, precisely as they occur in the telephone. — J. H. H.

Note 61. — Some interest attaches to this name of which I was not certain
at the time of the sitting. The name of my older sister who died when I
was two years old was Margaret Cornelia. She was named for an aunt
Cornelia, whom we called "aunt Cora." But the manner in which my sister
speaks of the person named indicates that it is more probably this aunt to
whom she refers. This view appears to be suggested by the remark 44 what
father calls her," in connection with the evident difficulty of getting the
name right and the fact that my sister can hardly be supposed to remember
this aunt, who is still living, as my sister died when nearly three years old.
But she can be supposed to know my sister Margaret Cornelia, though not
until after her own death, assuming spiritism true of course, as my sister
Annie was born after the death of Margaret Cornelia. Moreover in the
next sentence my sister asks my mother to help her to give the name she had
just tried. Now my mother was always very affectionately attached to this
aunt Cora, her own sister, and was possibly present at the first sitting when
the name 44 Corrie " was mentioned (p. 310), in connection with other sisters
of both my father and mother. My father is confessedly present at this
sitting of June 1st, and the allusion to what he calls her is especially
pertinent, because, if I remember rightly, he always alluded to her as aunt
Cornelia, while my mother called her 44 Cora" and we children aunt Cora.
There would be no such a conjunction of facts to suppose that the allusion is
to my sister Margaret Cornelia, though she would probably have been called
44 Cora " had she lived. Besides it would have been specially evidential, for
two reasons, to have mentioned this aunt Cornelia, both pertinent to my
mother. — J. H. H.

Note 62. I have already made clear, in the previous note, the possible
meaning of the name 44 Cora," and need not repeat the matter to clear up
the note made after the sitting. But I have also acquired information that
throws light on the reference to 44 Jennie," and so clears up the whole
passage. 44 Jennie " is the name of the sister to the Lucy who is mentioned,
the latter being the wife of Robert McClellan, my cousin, for whom my
sister is acting as intermediary, and hence this 4 4 Jennie" is his sister-
in-law. I never knew her, or even knew of her existence. I knew
absolutely nothing of Lucy McClellan's connections. It will thus be quite
apparent what significance the linking of the two names means in connection
with the intermediation for my cousin Robert McClellan. It is pertinent also
for my sister to say that 44 father knows about her better than I do," referring
to cousin Lucy, for my sister never knew her at all, as my cousin's wife
came into the acquaintance of our family only after she married my cousin,

XLI.]

Appendix III

515

which was long after my sister's death. The allusion to grandmother
would occasion difficulty to the passage if connected with my cousin Lucy in
the plain indication of the message taken in its strict context. But if the
two sentences are separated, and the phrase, " Lucy is there " be interpreted
to mean that she is on this side, that is, living, the case is perfectly clear, and
this was the interpretation that I gave it at the sitting, and see no reason to
change it, though it is undoubtedly equivocal, and if it were not for the
pertinence and clearness of the rest of the passage would be evidence of
some confusion. Two sisters-in-law might be mentioned. — J. H. H.

Note 63. — It will be remembered that in the note to the sitting of May
30th I was unable to attach any meaning to the name Peter. It was the
same at this sitting, but as the message purported to come from my cousin
Robert McClellan whose older son was named George, I resolved to inquire
when in the West whether this George ever had a dog named Peter. When
the first reference to it occurred I was thinking of my brother George, as
the incident about the injured foot was calculated to keep my mind in
the direction of my own family. But I knew that it could have no possible
application to my brother in connection with Robert McClellan, and so
treated the reference as a case of confusion which is so prevalent with this
communicator, and it turns out so with the name " Nanie," so far as can
now be ascertained. On the first chance, therefore, I asked George McClel-
lan's younger brother whether George ever had a dog by the name of Peter,
and received a negative answer. I did not explain why I asked it. I learned
afterward from my cousin that he laughed about my question to his
mother as being very funny, and repeated to her his denial of the fact, when
she contradicted him and said it was true. I saw her the next day and
ascertained that George did have a little ugly black dog named Peter when
he was between two and four years of age, and also that his father did not like
dogs because of his fear of hydrophobia. When I asked George himself some
days after the same question, he being a resident of another city, he said he
remembered only a dog by the name of Jack, which he had when he was five
or six years old. Thinking then that there might be some mistake about the
name on the part of the mother, I wrote to her to know if George's dog was
not named Jack instead of Peter, and I have the reply that both are correct,
that his first dog was named Peter, and was owned by him between his
second and fourth years, and that his next was named Jack, and owned when
he was five and six.

It is worth adding in reference to possible telepathy from my mind to
account for this incident, that I never knew of the existence of this dog or of
any dog owned by this second cousin. I never knew this cousin at all until he
was between seven and ten years old, and saw him only a few times after that
until he was grown up. His father, Robert McClellan, lived some distance
from the old homestead, to which he moved some years after the death of
his father in 1876, my uncle James McClellan. (See sitting for June 6th.)
I never visited my cousin Robert McClellan until after I graduated from
college in 1877, and hence did not see him in the home he had before he
moved to his own old home after his father's death. Consequently his son
was at least seven and perhaps ten years old before I knew anything about

516

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[PART

him except his name and relationship to me. It is apparent, therefore, how
little I was likely to know about his pete at two and four years of age.—

Note 64. — Inquiry in the West throws new light on this whole passage
beginning with the reference to my brother George, and changes its possible
interpretation considerably. It will be noticed that I said in my note on the
reference to my brother George that it was evidentially indefinite. It was
applicable to him in its incidents, but not in its emotional tone, as the
difference with him about his social relations did not represent so decided
anxiety as is implied here. The objections were not moral at all, but were
based upon the probable life that my brother would lead as a farmer. But
what I learned regarding the incident of the fish, about which I knew
nothing until told it here at the sittings, shows that it is probable that my
father had my brother Robert in mind, and that he made, strange to say, a
mistake similar to the one made later in the guitar incident (p. 461). This is
indicated by the association of the name of my brother Frank with the same
and following incidents. I ascertain from him that the incident of the fish is
not quite right. It was not on a Sunday that it occurred. It seems that
Frank and Robert were promised one Friday that they could go fishing on
half the day Saturday if they finished their work. They did so, and went
the next day to enjoy their fishing, but did not return until late in the after-
noon and had to pay the penalty for taking time not given them. My
father believed that Saturday afternoon and evening should be employed,
as far as posible, in preparing for the religious duties of the Sabbath
or Sunday, and often spoke of this to us. At least my brother Frank
remembers no case of fishing on Sunday as is implied in the communi-
cation. Now another mistake occurs here, which I could not detect at
the time because I did not know whether the reference to what appeared
to be Frank's social evenings was true or not. It will be seen that
I doubted it at the time, and hence I asked the question if Frank was meant
on purpose to determine this doubt. The aflirmative answer made it
necessary to inquire of him personally to ascertain its truth. Now my
brother Frank says that neither father nor aunt ever complained of his place
of calling, as he had none at all. This confirms my conjecture at the time
that the reference would have been more pertinent if made to my brother
Robert. In fact it is so pertinently applicable to him and involves such
personal and private matters that it is impossible to state the case as the
evidential problem would require. It becomes apparent at this point that the
reference to George was a mistake for Robert. The whole emotional and
moral tone of it applies more distinctly to him than to the event that I bad
in mind in reference to George, as the evident recurrence to the same facta
in the allusion again to spending the evenings and " temptatioti" shows.
The mistake of names disturbs the evidential value of the incidents very
much, but to me it would have such extraordinary pertinence if this mistake
had not been made, and if I could narrate the facts that show that
pertinence, that I have suffered myself to reconstruct it in the way I have
done simply to indicate how near the truth it comes. Corroborative of my
interpretation I have ascertained from two parties, besides my own memory*

J. H. H.

Appendix III.

517

t,liat my aunt and father did talk to my brother Robert about the very
incident so clearly intimated here. — J. H. H.

Note 65. — I find by inquiry that the chimney referred to here was not
t-»ken down on the building of the kitchen, but was modified by means of an
iron cover, the chimney never having been restored to its original height
After the accident from the cyclone. A part of it was removed after
fclie cyclone. I had merely inferred its taking down from my memory
of its foreshortened appearance caused by the building of the new
kitchen and the fact that I find it is not so high as I have represented it
in uiy former note. The question, then, about its being taken down must
\>e interpreted either as containing a false implication or as referring to its
Having been blown down by the cyclone, and hence to the same incident
implied by the allusion to what "happened" to it. But there is a good
lesson here against drawing inferences from one's memories, even though the
facts of the case consist with the inference. I find by inquiry also that we
had no aunt Lucy whatever. I was wholly mistaken regarding the name of
the aunt in mind.

Note 66. — I refused to comment on this reference to 44 Dr. Pierce " at the
time of the sitting because I thought possibly there might have been a
doctor by that name who attended my uncle at his death by the accident,
though I suspected that the name was a mistake for another doctor whom I
know very well. But I have been absent from this town for so many years
that it was possible for any number of unknown physicians to have installed
themselves there in the meantime. Hence before venturing to state my
conjecture regarding the possibility of this name I waited to inquire. I find
that no "Dr. Pierce" attended my uncle and that there is none such in that
place. But Dr. Harvey McClellan, who was indicated apparently at a
previous sitting and also at a later sitting, in both cases by my father (pp.
425, 491 ), was one of the attending physicians when my uncle's leg was ampu-
tated. But no 44 Dr. Pierce " was present. This, of course, is not asserted or
implied, but in the sitting for June 5th my brother Charles indicates that he
was a friend of my uncle 44 Clarke " which is true, if the name be interpreted
as a mistake for the man I had in mind when reading the record over
afterward. The true name should have been Dr. J. P. Dice. It can
be seen by those who are familiar with these experiments how Rice and
Pierce might be mistaken by Rector for the name I have given. The letter
"P" becomes crowded into the attempt at 4 4 Dice" and the name becomes
*' Pierce." This is of course conjecture, but it shows a possibility at least,
though it is not evidential. Cf. case of cat's name, Proceedings, Vol. VIII.,
p. 20. Also a similar mistake in case of a dog's name, Vol. VI., p. 620.
In both Pick was given for Dick.

Note 67. — I made personal inquiry of my brother Robert to know
whether his eyes have been giving him any trouble and received a negative
reply. He says that at no time have his eyes troubled him. I asked him the
question before he knew anything about my reasons for asking it, and I plied
him with various queries to see if there was even the trace of a truth in the

518

J. H. Hy*U>p, Ph.D.

[part

statement made by the communicator, and the straight answer was always
that neither at present nor in the past have his eyes troubled him in the
leant. I had an impression at the time that the statement was true, though
I knew that it would apply more correctly to the next older brother, Will,
who has had very considerable trouble with his eyes for more than a year.
The difficulty began with what he represented to me as poisoning, and was a
source of some danger and alarm to him at one time. But they are now
l>etter, though still troublesome. The allusion in the question "Are those
his children ? " would also have possible pertinence to brother Will, whose
two children father knew well enough before his death, and we could assume
conversation about them possibly. But as it is interpreted by Rector to
have been interruption we cannot attach any evidential importance to it.
On the spiritistic hypothesis the mistake involving a confusion of one brother
with the other would be natural enough for Charles to make, considering that
Robert was not born until seven months after Charles's death and that Will
was only two years old at the time. Besides, we may suppose that in the
confusion, incident to the interruption, Charles' thought may have passed
to my brother Will, and the latter's name escaped the machine. But these
facts, while they may explain the naturalness of the mistake, do not give it
evidential value.— J. H. H.

Note 68. — The statement of Rector, after I had said : 44 I do not under-
stand," that it 44 was only interruption," may show that I have no right to
assume that the question : 44 Are those his children ? " has the meaning that I
had supposed, namely, a mistaken reference to the children of my brother
Robert. It is much rather to be interpreted as an automatism due to a
remark of some one on the 44 other side" which gets written down before
Rector discovers its irrelevance to the communications from my brother
Charles. This automatism could occur in several ways which it is not
necessary to unravel here, as even its very existence has to be conjectured,
or accepted on the veracity of Rector, and I will not press the intelligibility
of the statement farther than to say that, on any theory, we can discover a
unity in the whole passage by treating the reference to children as an
irrelevance precisely as the statement about the interruption would most
naturally imply that it is. Had my brother Charles given the name of my
brother Will when he resumed his messages this view of the case would
have been much clearer to the general reader. (Jan. 201/t, 1900.) — J. H. H.

Note W. — I ascertained by personal inquiry in the West an incident that
makes my conjecture probably the right one, namely, that it was my cousin
Robert McClellan that was communicating. When I read the passage to his
sister, referred to in the sitting for May 31st as 4 4 aunt Nannie " and bia
44 sister," she remarked that there was no meaning in the mention of the
book of poems. She went on to say spontaneously, however, and without
any indications that she was mentioning a pertinent fact, that as she had
nursed him for several months, she had taken to him and read to him a book
called 44 Morning Thoughts." The end of each chapter is made of a rather
long poem. — J. H. H.

XLI.]

Appendix III.

519

Note 70. — Inquiry results in the confirmation of only one of the incidents
in answer to my request for facts that I did not know, and this is the name
of the orphan boy, Jerry, who had been taken into the family, and whom I do
not remember personally. My aunts remember none of them except this one,
and they recognise the pertinence of this very distinctly. There was the
special reason for mentioning this boy, that he was rather good-natured, but
dull to learn, and often got into trouble innocently by not knowing the risks
and dangers to which his curiosity exposed him. For instance, he got his
face badly burnt by powder in a foolish experiment with it ; had the skin
taken off his tongue by putting it against a frozen axe ; was in the habit of
going to sleep in church, and when awakened up would drop off into sleep
again while putting a clove into his mouth, etc. These and many other
incidents made him the subject of much amusement and story telling in the
family and elsewhere. He came into the family, according to my aunt's
statement, about the year 1865, but she does not remember when he left.
All that I can remember is that he enlisted in the Civil War. I recall hearing
this told, but do not remember it personally.

There is a peculiar interest and possibility connected with the shoe and
sock incident. It is consciously recognised that no one living can verify it.
My father says that only his mother and the Rogers girl can testify to it. I
have a strong recollection that I have heard my grand uncle (who died many
years ago and to whom no allusion is made in this record) mention the name
Rogers. He was the brother of my grandmother here mentioned. But as
my two aunts do not recall any one by the name of Rogers, I have to discount
my own memory in the case. But it is certainly interesting to find the name
thus connected with my father's mother and connected in my own memory
only with her brother. It is noteworthy, too, that this incident is omitted
from the list which I was admonished at Dr. Hodgson's sitting of July 6th
to inquire into carefully (p. 497).

It is not surprising that my aunts cannot remember these incidents,
assuming that they are even possibly true, because they are so small and
trivial that they might well be forgotten by them, though remembered by
father. My experiments on the 44 Identification of Personality" very fre-
quently show the same difference of memory between the communicator and
the receiver of messages. (C/. references, p. 268.) But it will interest
the advocate of telepathy that the only incident which my aunts recall
is also one that I knew, namely, the name of " Jerry," the orphan
boy. But they could be expected to remember him, because his place
in their experience was too prominent to be forgotten as easily as the
other incidents. If they could have been verified they would have
had almost irresistible evidential force in the case. But the best that
can be said of them is that we do not know whether they are true or
false.— J. H. H.

[I may add, however, that by persistent inquiry I found that one of the
main factors in one of the incidents was true, and of course unknown to me.
By the time that I began to push my investigations into details my two
aunts, Nannie and Eliza, became violently hostile to answering my ques-
tions and took every opportunity to deny what was not technically correct
all the way through. But incidentally it came out that my aunt Eliza did

520

J. H. Hyslo]), Ph.D.

[part

walk home from a prayer meeting with a certain young man, and was teamed
about it by father. But his name was not Baker. (June 28th, 1900).—
J. H. H.]

Note 71. — This communication direct from my uncle James McClellan,
who was the father of my cousin Robert McClellan, and who has communi-
cated so often, has very considerable interest, as much for the error of
memory among his brothers still living as for similar errors on the other
side.

The first incident is that in which he said that he always despised the
name Jim. This could not be taken from my memory for two reasons.
(1) I myself never despised the name, and (2) I never knew that my uncle
did so. As my former note indicates, I at once saw that the statement was
pertinent on the ground of what I did remember, namely, that we always
called him " uncle Mack." But I do not recall ever having the fact explained,
as we called one of his nephews, my cousin, also by the name 44 Mack." But
I asked one of his daughters, the 44 Nannie " in the communications from my
cousin Robert McClellan, whether this statement about his despising the
name Jim was correct or not, and she did not know or could not remember.
When I read the passage to another daughter, she broke out laughing and
said that it was perfectly true, recalling the fact that her mother often
corrected the neighbours for calling him Jim, and would often say to the
family that she was afraid she would be called proud on account of her tastes.
The community was a pioneer one, and those who chose to adopt certain
refinements of civilisation had often to suffer the criticism of their neighbours,
who said people were 44 proud " if they showed any solicitude on matters of
this sort.

The correction of the mistake in the name 44 cousin John" is very
interesting, as it was purely voluntary on the part of the persons on the side
of the communications. Of course the letter from the son of this John
McClellan had put me in knowledge of the fact that he was still hVing, and
the circumstance becomes amenable to telepathy, though the dramatic play
of personality involved is a difficulty in the way of the view, especially the
statement that I must remember his brother John if I was James, as my
uncle, who was rather a favourite of mine, died while I was at college in the
town where his brother John McClellan lived, as indicated before. The
manner too, in which some confusion occurs between the names of his
brother John and his father John is an interesting fact, though it is quickly
cleared, and the circumstance represents a fact wholly beyond my knowledge,
as I never knew his father personally or by name, so far as I can remember.

The correction of the statement that this brother was in the war is also
an incident of some importance. It turns out to be true that the brother was
never in any war, and the confusion between the two names is still apparent
in the attempt to communicate, though immediately corrected, and the
reference made to his father as the one who was in the war, which I find
also to have been incorrect.

The inquiries that led to the discovery that this statement about my uncle's
father having been in the war is false are detailed in Note 94 p. 535 with
the evidence of who was probably meant. The language here clearly refers to

XLT.]

Appendix III

521

my uncle's father. But there was evidently some confusion in the matter,
possibly precipitated by my statement that I did not remember my uncle's
father. Compare with this also the summary (p. 111). In any case, how-
ever, the incidents of the war and lost finger are not true of him, but
of another John McClellan, who was not a relative of my uncle at
all, and who was probably the person meant in the sitting of May
31st (p. 431). But in regard to the statement that this John McClellan
"had a brother David who had a sunstroke," John McClellan, Dr. Harvey
McClellan, William McClellan, sons, and William McClellan, nephew, said
that he had no brother by this name. But in order to see if there was
anything near the truth in the statement, I asked if he had any relative
by that name, and was answered in the negative by all except John
McClellan, the son, who said that he had a brother-m-Zaw by the name of
David Elder. My aunt Nannie also knew of this David Elder. The fact
gave me confidence in the clue. But none of the McClellans remembered
whether this David Elder had a sunstroke or not. Through one of them,
Dr. Harvey McClellan, I was directed to address an inquiry to the
daughter of David Elder, and it turned out that she was not livings
the fact being unknown to her cousin who gave me the address ! True,
she lived in another county, but she had died two years before, as I
learned from her daughter, and the fact, we should suppose, ought to have
been known to her cousin. Through this daughter I obtained some further
information embodied in Note 72.

It is pertinent to see the name of * 4 Nancy" given in this connection,
because this is the name of my uncle James McClellan 's mother, virgin
name Nancy Elder, sister of the David Elder just indicated. This
I did not know, and assumed that he was intending to refer to my
aunt Nannie, his sister-in-law. There is, however, nothing but its con-
nection and the way it is written to indicate that the reference should be
taken as made to his mother. Earlier in life we had called aunt Nannie
by the name of aunt Nancy, but for thirty years or more only in the form
that it invariably appears in these communications. My uncle most pro-
bably called my aunt by the name of Nancy, so that if we assume, as I think
there is no reason to do, that he was referring to my aunt Nannie we should
have an interesting variation from the usage in these sittings which would
be against the telepathic, and in favour of the spiritistic theory. We could
escape its cogency for this view only by assigning telepathy an associative
power and access to the connections in memory equal to its assumed acquisi-
tive capacity at the same time, a view which is not supported by the
mistakes and confusions in this record. Apparently, however, the evidence
is that my uncle was referring to the name of his mother, which was Nancy,
and I understand that she was always called so As I did not know the
name of my uncle's mother the difficulty with telepathy still remains con-
siderable on this interpretation of his reference. — J. H. H.

Note 72. — September 17th, 1899. After some months' correspondence
and much difficulty I have been able to obtain further information of *
sunstroke incident. The granddaughter of this David Elder wrote U
uncles asking them whether their father ever had a sunstroke, or had

522

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

overcome with the heat, and whether it had affected him afterward, if he had
«uch a stroke. The answer came from one of them that he thought that his
father had been overcome with heat about the close of the war (1865), bat
that it did not affect him in after years. The other, the one with whom the
father had lived, said that his father * 4 never had a sunstroke, nor was he
very much affected by the heat of it." I then wrote to the first of these two
for particulars, and the reply was dictated to his son as follows : —

Washington, Iowa, September 4th, 1899.
Dear Sir, - My father asks me to say in response to the attached (my
inquiry) that in 1866 or '66 or '67 or '68, his father was slightly overheated,
but not, according to his remembrance, seriously so. There were no further
particulars that he can give. — Yours resj>ect fully,

J*«. H. Hyslop, New York City. " °Rvmj! Eu>,au

To the other brother who had denied the occurrence I wrote what his
brother had said in the affirmative, and he repeats, in reply, that he has no
recollection of it, but admits that it is possible, though he insists, no doubt
correctly enough, that it could not have been serious. The case thus stands
rather in favor of the statement at the sitting, though it was evidently not
apparently so serious as the natural interpretation of the language in the
communication would imply. But when we consider that even a light stroke
of this kind carries with it prolonged consequences we need not be surprised
that there should be an apparent discrei>ancy between the description of the
sons and that of my uncle about the person concerned. My father had a
light sunstroke in or about 1867, and all his life afterward had to be careful
about working in the sun. — J. H. H.

[Further inquiry of persons who have been slightly overcome with heat
and of physicians confirms the statement that subjects of sunstroke, no
matter how light, never recover from the effects of it (January 20th, 1900).
-J. H. H.]

Note 73. — This incident about the minerals cannot be verified by either of
the aunts, his sisters. The word 44 minerals" is not one that would indicate
any of the intellectual or other interest that my father ever had within my
recollection. He knew nothing about geology, and cared nothing about
minerals or jewelry of any sort that I ever knew. He may at one time
have had some Indian relics which might pass here for " minerals," but I
never knew of his possessing anything of this kind. I merely knew that he
did exhibit some interest in such relics, but I know of no collection of them in
his possession. He used to tell us a great deal about Indian history in
Ohio, and especially about Indian battles. — J. H. H.

[Since writing the preceding note I recalled the fact that father did have
a small collection of Indian relics, consisting of an Indian hatchet or two, a
mortar and pestle, another whose purpose I have forgotten, and a large
number of flint arrows. He used to find these on the farm when ploughing
or at work in the fields, and he often spoke of their camping ground as pro-
bably near a certain spring on our neighbour's place, that of the Samuel
Cooper mentioned in this record. To test my memory of this collection
I asked his sister, my aunt Nannie, yesterday (September 23rd, 1899)

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix III.

523

if she remembered whether father ever took an interest in Indian relics,
and had a collection of them. She replied to both queries in the affirmative,
but she could recall only the arrows and the hatchet in it. She had no
recollection of the others. She said that he had quite an interest in such
things as a young man, though he showed none of the enthusiasm or
disposition of the collector. — J. H. H.]

Note 74. — The question about the name of 44 that Dr." is equivocal. If
there was any consciousness of the mistake in regard to Dr. Dice, it might
be interpreted as a reference to him, but as it was my uncle that was trying
to give this name I can hardly assume that this was meant by my father. The
second possibility is that of Dr. Harvey McClellan, but as this name was
suspected once before, and mentioned once afterward (pp. 425, 491) or presum-
ably so in the form of 44 Henry McClellan," the communicator would hardly
have spoken here as he did. In fact, reading this statement in connection
with the attempt to complete the reference to "a doctor who had peculiar
religious views " suggested that possibly my interpretation of that passage
as referring to Dr. Harvey McClellan might be wrong. Hence when
reading the sittings over about two weeks after their occurrence, I
recalled another physician of father's acquaintance who would admirably
fit the facts. He was a dentist, and was always called 44 Doctor" by
father and the family. He was of the Unitarian profession, or something
like this, and father had many conversations with him on the subject of
religion, and 4 4 peculiar" (better * 4 strange") was the term that father would
naturally use to describe them. Father was quite a friend of this man, in
Hpite of his heterodoxy. But he is not clearly enough indicated to
Huppose certainly that he was meant. Hence I mention him only to modify
the interpretation of the former incident.

This persistent reference to the books sent me the year before he died is
an interesting incident. I have denied its truth all along, and have still to
deny it, so far as my recollection goes. When I said to him at the sitting
that I had them in my library, I meant to quiet his mind about it while I
had in view the books of his which I took and kept after his death. I had
in mind, too, what was said at an earlier sitting (December 27th, p. 336). But
the reference to 44 a box containing two or more books " and sent me 44 before I
(he) became so ill," has an interest as being nearly right. I remembered his
sending me a box some time before his illness, and containing something
very different from books, and hence I could only interpret this as false.
But I read over his correspondence with me and find that in a letter of
December 22nd, 1892, he mentions sending me a box containing some things
for us, and mentions butter. I do not remember whether this box had any
other contents or not. But in a letter of November 20th, 1893, he mentions
his and mother's purpose to send us a box of various things, but it was not
realised for some time, as the letter for January 8th, 1894, mentions sending
it and apologises for the delay. The box contained two rolls of butter, two
dressed chickens and some nuts. But I do not remember any books in it ;
in fact, am quite confident that none such were sent me at that time. The
date shows, however, that it was more than a year before his death, a mistake
that is not so bad when we reflect that I made the same mistake until the

Digitized by Google

524

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[PABT

reading of the letters corrected it. It is barely possible that he may hare
sent me some books to read and which were returned. Careful inquiry,
however, does not assure anything definite about this possibility.

Previous notes show that the incidents about the reading of the paper
and the glasses troubling his eyes are correct, except that the cause of the
trouble in the eyes was probably not his glasses, but the gradual breaking up
of his system, though my father thought at the time that it was his glasses.
— J. H. H.

Note 76. — I could never feel satisfied with the absurd conception indi-
cated in my note of June 7th (p. 476), which had assumed the possibility of
continued weakness after death in order to make conceivable the possible
amount of truth in the reference to the number 25, or 23, as Mrs. P. went
into the trance. But it occurred to me afterwards that this message might
have been much more fragmentary than it seems. Assuming then that my
father did not communicate all that he intended, and that he was trying to
say something about the twenty -third psalm (hymn), and about his inability
to sing because he did not have any teeth, we should have a conception
that does not involve the difficulties attaching to my original interpretation.
It would be specially pertinent to mention this psalm for two reasons.
First, my mother recited it in a clear voice on her death-bed after we
thought she had become unconscious. Secondly, my father often tried to
impress the sentiment of this psalm upon our minds by reminding us of its
place among the last words of our mother, and by frequently singing it at
family worship. This new interpretation does not involve the assumption
of continued physical weakness and defects after death, as my previous note
represents it, and hence the possible meaning of these fragments appears
without the incredible conception which was stated, not because it was
believed or believable, but because it served as an aid to the explanation of
the possible pertinence of Mrs. Piper's statements. There is nothing
evidential in the message, as it does not clearly state what I have conjec-
tured, but the reconstruction serves to show how near to a significant truth
a lot of confusion and absurdity can be. — J. H. H.

Note 76. — Inquiry of my aunt here mentioned fails to verify the fact.
The doubt expressed by the communicator himself led me to inquire also of
the other aunt, who also does not remember the incident. If it were not for
the communicator's own doubt about the person who helped him out of his
difficulty we could very safely say that it is false, because I find by inquiry
that my aunt Eliza is thirteen years younger than my father, and hence was
not born at the time indicated in the incident. It would be quite possible
for my aunt Nannie to have been the witness of this little escapade, as she
was only eight years father's junior, but we could hardly expect her to
remember such an incident. — J. H. H.

Note 77. — It might have been stated here in the previous note that my
assumption of the possible meaning of the name * * Nannie" for my step-
mother is decidedly confirmed by this phrase " my own mother Nannie."
For as both were called Margaret, we can suppose that the phrase is a

Appendix III.

525

raginent of what was said explaining that his own mother's name was the
aune as 4 4 Maggie's" which was what he always called my stepmother. This
re have seen appeared as 44 Nannie," which, be it noted, as I have elsewhere
explained (p. 342), is probably a mistake of Rector's, or possibly of
he * * machine" for what was definitely thought by my father as Maggie
ty. pp. 69, 366).— J. H. H.

Note 78. — The incidents about the 44 Cooper School " and father's visit to
ne which I have explained in a previous note (See Notes 39, p. 499, and 53,
x 507) show clearly enough that the communicator was possibly right in thus
dluding to this trip as having been mentioned before. But my ignorance
>f the 44 Cooper School" incident prevented any recognition of this cor-
rectness at the time.

On examination of the two sets of sittings, however, mine and Dr.
Hodgson's, I find nothing that justifies assurance about the reference to this
Western trip 44 just before going out West." But the association of the fact
with the allusion to my stepmother, though suggestible by my question,
obtains such pertinence as it has from the spontaneous intimation that the
trip had been mentioned before. The trip was taken for the purpose of look-
ing up a place to which to move, but the decision was in favour of another
place than that of the original intention.

There is, however, too much confusion in the present communications,
and too much equivocation in the allusion to a journey in connection with the
Cooper incident (p. 421) for me to suppose anything evidential in the present
references. But I may explain the confusion and indicate two or three
interesting psychological features of the passage.

I had been the source of the confusion in the first place by not making it
clear that I was asking for my stepmother instead of my mother. There
would be no apparent reason to my father for my asking about a trip in such
close connection with the reference to the cap, since the cap was made in
1895, and the trip with my stepmother was taken in 1884. But as my father
presumably alluded to a trip with my own mother at the sitting of Dr.
Hodgson on February 7th (p. 371) it was natural for his mind to recur to
that on the present occasion, as such a trip had a direct association with
myself for him. My special object here, to call out incidents that I did not
know, was not detected, and the communicator's mind would naturally be
diverted by this apparently abrupt change of subject, which in fact would
not appear to him to be a change at all if I was referring to my mother,
whose identity enters into the confusion, as the communications show. It is
strongly corroborative of the thought unity in the case, in spite of its con-
fusion, and of my conjecture that my father had the trip with my own mother
in mind, to see the name Sarah mentioned immediately after the allusion to
the maker of the cap. For my aunt Sarah was with us, my mother, my
father, my sister Annie, and myself, on the trip in 1861, a fact wholly
forgotten by me at the time of the sitting, and only discovered accidentally
in a conversation with this aunt afterward. The recognition a little later
(p. 481) that this was the trip intended confirms my supposition, though it^
force is made dubious by my statement just previous. So also is the ree
nition of the trip with my stepmother, though it would possess m

526

«/. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[part

pertinence if I could feel assured that the pronoun "we" and the allusion
to a journey in connection with the Cooper incident (p. 421) referred to my
stepmother. — J. H. H.

Note 79. — When I made this answer to father's statement about the cap
in connection with the name of aunt Nannie I interpreted it to be an answer
to my question about it a little earlier, but on careful examination I see
that it is nothing of the kind, but is an attempt to clear up the confusion
of my stepmother's name with that of my aunt, about which there was so
much difficulty, as the sitting shows. The next note will show this view
of the case still more clearly, I think. — J. H. H.

Note 80. — From a statement (p. 491) at the last sitting (June 8th) I

at first thought that this "H . . . HAR H . . " might possibly

have been one of the attempts to spell out the name of Harper Crawford
there mentioned. But more careful examination shows that this is not the
most probable interpretation. It is more likely that he was trying to give
the name of my stepmother Margaret. Compare Notes 82 and 86. This is
evidenced by the mention of his mother, whose name was Margaret (see
above), and his sister, with whose name he had confused that of my step-
mother. The " No, go on," is probably an interruption of Rector's to have
father go on with his explanation of the confusion and to stop the reference
to "HAR." But it was a wonderful piece of pertinent reference to say
that he thought of his mother and sister, in connection with an attempt to
clear up the confusion of my aunt's name with that of my stepmother,
as the statement of facts just above clearly indicates.

It becomes clear also that my supposition in the answer to his statement
about the cap and thinking it over when I mentioned aunt Nannie was a
misunderstanding on my part, representing confusion on my side while his
accusation that I misunderstood him is justified by the facts, and hence the
clearness was on his side. The reference to "our visit to her also" Ls
wonderfully pertinent here, because, though it was in 1876 on his return
from the Centennial at Philadelphia, I had earlier in the sitting referred
to a trip out West with her, in asking for my stepmother's name, and still
earlier had indicated that her name was confused with that of my aunt.
There is a distinct consciousness of this confusion here in the reference to
the cap and my aunt's name. It was therefore a perfectly correct piece of
association for him to run over the trip that was connected with the visit to
my aunt. This fact alone is almost enough to prove identity, in spite of the
confusion, and perhaps one might almost say on account of it.

I find also by inquiry that there is no Harriet among the relatives as my
note after the sitting supposes there was. Hence, all that was supposed in
reference to that name has to be withdrawn. Besides, no Harriet was
visited. The whole passage becomes clear enough in the light of the
previous explanation, and the fact just learned from my stepmother that
father and she visited my aunt at the time I have mentioned, 1876. — J. H. H.

Note 81. — There is an extraordinary interest in the statements here about
the visit to the boys and the arrangement to go out West to live. I may have
known of these visits, but I did not recall them and had to verify them by

XLI.]

Appendix III.

527

inquiry, and found that on his return home from this Western trip he did
visit brother George with mother. It appears, however, to be a statement
made to Rector, and not necessarily to me, as the " visit to the boys " must
include me, if we take the plural into account, because my brother Will was
on the home farm at that time, and it would hardly be proper to say that the
return thither to him was a " visit " to him. This is clearly recognised in
the statement, "we saw George and Will," etc. But on this return he did
have a long consultation with brother Will regarding his willingness to take
the farm if he (father) decided to leave. But the most pertinent thing about
the statement is that he " arranged to go out there to live," as this is exactly
what he did, the time relation being precisely correct here.

The chief interest of this, however, is the relation of it to the theory of
telepathy. If it is to be accounted for on that hypothesis, it involves a
distinction by Mrs. Piper's subliminal between personal knowledge and
experience in connection with my father and what I merely knew by report
and thoughts about the matter. I merely knew most of these things by
correspondence and inference and not as personal experience, so that the
connection with my father is merely a thought connection. Now if telepathy
is to account for it, why does that agency not also obtain abundance of other
thoughts with the same kind of association ? Why does it so uniformly limit
itself to the incidents in mine or others' memory that represent the
personal unity of my father's consciousness and memory at the same time ?
This is a tremendous capacity to assume, especially when we note its infalli-
bility in that respect and such decided fallibility in selecting the relevant
facts after so correctly discriminating them from the irrelevant. For there
is not one case that I have observed in the whole seventeen sittings which
can represent a thought alone about my father. The associative unity
and synthesis is wholly that of a personality on the other side, and not
that of telepathic acquisition from my memory, unless we suppose an
infallible distinction between mere thoughts associated with my father and
personal experiences so associated, to say nothing of the large number of
facts that I did not know at all. — J. H. H.

Note 82. — As I compare different passages in which this " Har " occurs it
seems more probable that it is a mistake for "Margaret." This appears
almost evident, if not conclusive, in the sitting for June 8th (p. 491),
where the "Har . . . MARGARET" occur together though it is probable
that another Margaret, my deceased aunt, is intended in the latter case. It
would suit this case to interpret it so because the allusion to the trip with
this person is so pertinent to her, my stepmother, especially when taken in
connection with my question regarding the same, and the remark immedi-
ately afterward that he would try and tell me exactly what I wauted. —

Note 83. — The chief interest in this passage is the knowledge of Rector,
as later statements would indicate, regarding the relation to me of the
parties named. It is perfectly correct, and as realistic as could be imagined.
It is not in the least like the passive acquisition of telepathy, if our concep-
tion of that process is correct. The indication that there is a Nannie in the

J. H. H.

528

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

body to be distinguished from my mother who is dead, and the reason
assigned for our confusion is a fine piece of independent intelligence, no
matter whether we suppose the allusion to be to my Aunt Nannie or to my
stepmother with the continued use of the erroneous name. — J. H. H.

Note 84. — I have made diligent inquiry about this alleged experience of my
uncle 44 Clarke," and cannot verify it. His wife and children cannot confirm
it. Either they were not told it or they do not recognise in the incident as
narrated here anything to recall what they may have been told. All of them,
however, state that many years ago he had a waking vision of a chariot and
two ways, the chariot being full of flaming swords and passing through a
scene of great carnage. But as he had taken a dose of morphine it was
treated as the effect of this, except that my uncle often spoke of it as having had
a symbolic influence on his religious life. I see no reason for giving it such
a meaning or any meaning except the effects of the morphine. It certainly
does not fit the incident as here told by my father, so that we have some-
thing to deal with that is either false or un verifiable. It would be a most
interesting fact if verifiable, as it would afford both a means of identification
and an indication of something beyond telepathy. There is an interesting
circumstance, however, that may explain why I could not verify it. The
statement that he, my uncle, saw the light and spoke of it before he came
here, though it seems to imply that it had been mentioned before he died,
does not absolutely require this interpretation, as it may mean only that he
had spoken of it before he came to communicate 44 here." He had died some
two months or more before I had my sittings. The evidence for this interpre-
tation of the sentence is the fact that in the same passage father very care-
fully distinguishes between the interval between death and the time and
place of communications, and the interval between the alleged conversation
and the time of coming to the communications. This is what is meant by
the change to the spiritistic lingo which I noticed. If then it be true that
there is no reason to suppose the experience had been told to any one, we can
hardly assume it to have necessarily been in the jiossession of those of whom
I had to inquire. The statement later that I must 44 remember the facts
very well " does not necessarily imply that I knew the facts of the experience,
but may mean only that I must remember the facts which father supposed
that he had told before he was *4 too far off" to complete the story. Con-
sequently, the experience might have been one that occurred to him after
the accident by which he lost his life, and when he was in a condition that
might either prevent the telling of it or offer no opportunity to tell it. I
have no necessary reason, therefore, to suppose that the incident would be
verifiable in any case. — J. H. H.

Note 85. — This is an incident about which I knew nothing, and, consider-
ing that the aunt of whom it is told is twenty years older than I am, I could
not be expected to know it. But I asked my aunt Nannie, who is eight
years older than the aunt Eliza of whom it is told, and she emphatically
denied the truth of the incident. But this aunt Eliza herself told me
that she was nicknamed 44 Lizzie" when a child, and that afterward the

XLI.]

Appendix III.

529

family began calling her Eliza, by which name I always knew her, and I
never heard any mention of what my aunt Nannie herself could not
remember. — J. H. H.

Note 86. — This passage apparently indicates a connection between the
attempts with "Har" and the name "Margaret." But there is some
confessed confusion in it, and possibly no effort would suffice to unravel it,
especially as the name Jennie occurs out of place in this instance, unless we
suppose that the Margaret in this case is not meant for my mother at all,
but for my aunt, the second wife of my uncle James McClellan, who
communicated before. In this case the Jennie could have the significance
already given it, as the sister of her stepson's wife. But the importance of
the passage is its connection of " HAR" with "MARGARET." It shows
what the probable meaning of " HAR" in previous messages (pp. 481, 482),
though it is probable that the person meant is not the same. — J. H. H.

Note 87. — This incident about the organ turns out to be perhaps as
remarkable as any in the whole series of sittings. I knew nothing about the
fact. The church to which allusion is made is the First United Presbyterian
Church in the town of father's old home, as indicated by my question, and
the Harper Crawford, whom I mentioned just to start father in the direction
of memories in connection with this old friend, belonged to this church. I
learned from my aunt Nannie (about June 25th, 1899), who keeps in close
communication with her sister, that an organ had been put into this church
about two months previously, the denomination being opposed to instru-
mental worship until recent changes in its constitution permitted the
introduction of it in churches desiring it. I learned also from her that
it was the introduction of the organ into this church (Sunday-school)
that was the reason why my uncle "Clarke" and his wife left this
congregation and went to the second U.P. Church. I probably knew
that they had left it, but if I did know it I had wholly forgotten it. The
only chance I had to know it was at the time of my father's death when I
was at his old home, but I recall nothing said or done at the time to give me
any information on the point. On further inquiry I learned that the
organ had been introduced into the Sunday-school of this church two or
three years before my uncle's death, but not into the regular services until
two months previous to the time of my last sittings. Now as an indication
of my ignorance regarding the facts it is interesting to know that soon
after my first series of sittings I wrote to my aunt, the wife of this uncle,
the aunt Eliza of these records, and asked her to send me some questions
which were to concern facts in the lives of my father and herself, and my
uncle and herself, that I did not know. I had her seal the questions in an
envelope which I was not to open until at the sittings. I had this envelope
with me in my pocket, which I had kept there after opening it in Boston for
use at one of the sittings. I kept it there very carefully so that no one
should see it. One of the two questions in it was : " Why did your uncle
and I leave the First Church ? " I had, of course, seen the question, but I
did not liave the slightest conception of what it was expected to elicit. But
I did not see the suitable occasion to present the question. The information,

530

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

however, which my aunt Nannie gave me about the introduction of the organ
into this church turned out to be the proper answer to this question which
was never put, and whose answer I did not know.

The most remarkable part of it, however, is the fact that I learned
casually in a conversation with my sister and stepmother when narrating the
incidents here associated with the name of Harper Crawford. Without the
slightest suspicion of the pertinence of the circumstance, my stepmother
remarked that Harper Crawford, with his family, was the only person beside
my uncle " Clarke " and family who left this church on account of the
introduction of the organ. I learned from my aunt later that one other
person in the congregation had left on account of it, but this is of no
importance except to make the story correct, and to show the limited number
of persons involved in the situation. I, of course, knew nothing of this
Harper Crawford's action, as I have only spoken to him a few times, when
on visits to my old home, in the last twenty years, and have had no com-
munications at all either with him or about him in all that time. I might
very well have gotten some hint of the admission of the organ into the
Church Sunday School at the time of my father's death, if it was in then,
because I stayed for ten days at my " uncle Clarke's" house. But we were
so out of sympathy on religious questions that we never talked about them
in any shape, and so I was ignorant, at least so far as my memory serves me,
of both the fact of the introduction of the organ and its connection with his
and my aunt's leaving the church.

Now the interesting feature of the incident is that the statement about
the organ should be started by my reference to Harper Crawford and given
almost instantly, and then that I should find that there was a real connection
beyond my knowledge between the two facts and also with my uncle who
had so recently died. It is probable that father did not know the fact of the
introduction of the organ before his death. If he did not, his knowledge of
it would have to come from this uncle who was one of the parties affected.
But considering my ignorance of the main facts and any process whatsoever
of acquiring them, the unity of consciousness involved in this incident
appears to transcend any possibility of telepathy whatever, short of infinity
in the capacities of Mrs. Piper's brain. — J. H. H.

[Since writing the foregoing I have just discovered one of father's letters
misplaced from the package already examined, and dated June 10th, 1896,
two months and a-half before his death. It states the fact that this Harper
Crawford and my uncle 44 Clarke " had left this church, but does not give the
reason. Hence, contrary to my supposition, father probably did know all that
is implied here and did not have to get it from my uncle after his death
«xcept the putting of the organ into the regular services of worship.
(September 17th, 1899.)— J. H. H.]

[I made special inquiries for an official statement from the Secretary of the
Session in the church here concerned regarding the exact time that the organ
was decided upon and put in. I give the questions and answers as originally
presented. The answers I put in quotations.

1. At what date did the Session decide by vote to introduce an organ into
the Swuiay School ? Ans. : " April 2nd, 1895."

2. At what date was the organ put in t (No answer to this question.)

XLI.]

Ajypendix III.

531

3. At what date did the Session decide by vote to put the organ into the
regular services ? Am : " July 5th, 1898."

4. On what date was it put in for this purpose ? Am. : " May 4th, 1899."

5. When did Mr. James B. Carruthers and Mr. Harper Crawford ask and
obtain their certificate of departure from the church. Am. ; " June 4th,

This statement makes it apparent that the organ was put into the main
part of the church and its services after the death of my uncle Carruthers,
though the official decision for it was six months before his decease. But, as
shown both by my father's letter mentioned above, and this official statement,
the organ was put into the Sunday School before this, and the two men
had left the church long before the decision to put it into the main part of
the service. Consequently, the allusion of my father to the case may not
refer to anything learned from my uncle since his death, but to a matter of
common knowledge before either of them died. Father's letter to me makes
this clear, though it gives no hint of the cause for the abandonment of the
church by the two men mentioned.1

If we are to apply telepathy to this incident it performs the extraordinary
trick of completing the story of my father's letter in 1896, either by selecting
from my subliminal self information absolutely forgotten by me and using
it as a means to obtain rapport with other minds, or by reaching out into the
world at large and obtaining the desired information in that way alone.
(Octolier 29th, 1899.)— J. H. H.]

Note 88. — This jwissage beginning with the reference to my brother
George is as pertinent and extraordinary conversation as could be imagined.
There is not an irrelevance in it. Every statement is charged with meaning
that the members of the family know too well. The underscoring suggests
facts and pertinent emotional tone that only myself and members of the
family can appreciate. It was the negligence of my brother in matters of
business letters that was the cause of a great deal of friction and unpleasant
correspondence and worry both by father and myself. The underscoring
shows the recognition of this fact. All the way through the connection and
clearness are as perfect as any conversation between two living persons and
superior to much that goes on over the telephone. — J. H. H.

Not* 89. — I ascertained in the West, rather accidentally while alluding to
the pertinence of this reference to my brothers, a fact that gives additional
significance to the mention of my brother George in this connection. My
stepmother remarked that George was named originally among the executors
in father's will which was drawn in 1887, and that afterwards his name was
taken off because of dissatisfaction with his business methods, and another
named in his place. The reader can determine for himself the unity of
consciousness involved in the incident, as it contains personal features
which cannot be any more clearly indicated. — J. H. H.

1 At a fitting on February 5th, 1900, which is not included in this record, my

iuher spontaneously mentions that he had heard of the organ incident after his
fcith.— J. H. H.

1895.

532

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

Note 90. — Inquiry develops the fact that both my opinions expressed in
the original note (p. 493) were correct, and that the incident about the fence
related to the farm. My brother and stepmother say that he did not concern
himself about the fence around the house out West, and that he was not
impressed with the plan to remove it, though not objecting seriously to it.
But they say that he did think and talk very much about putting a wire
fence on the old homestead farm.

The tax incident also turns out correct, though my stepmother could not
recall it. But I had a resource in this instance that I cannot always com-
mand for emergencies of this sort. I read father's letters to me from 1892
to the time of his death in 1896. In a letter of July 9th, 1892, he states his
situation regarding his taxes, and speaks very pathetically about it, and any
one who ever knew how father felt about *not being able to pay his taxes
would appreciate thoroughly from his language in this letter what his state of
mind was and the readiness with which the incident is recalled here beyond
the grave. He says in it that they were due and would have to go on the
delinquent list in fifteen days if he could not get the money to pay them,
as the income from the farm had not supplied him with the necessary means
for it, and he so despised borrowing money for any purpose, especially for
paying taxes. He had asked one of my brothers to pay them, because
I had frequently supplied him with funds between November, 1891, and
March, 1892, and he would not ask me for more. My brother failed
to pay them at the time they were due, and father wrote me in this
letter that they would have to go unpaid and be settled after he was
gone, but asked me to advise him what to do and to write this
brother about the matter. My recollection is that I did write an urgent
letter to my brother about it, but as my own letters to father have been
destroyed and my brother does not recall my having done so, the fact
cannot be proved more clearly. At any rate, the next letter from father,
of August 1st, 1892, states that this brother had promised to pay the taxes,
and I learned from my brother personally this summer that he had once paid
father's taxes. Since seeing him he has examined his books and writes
me that he finds "that in March, 1893, I (he) paid father's tax which was
overdue.''

The expression 44 actively helped" in describing the part I played in the
embarrassment seems thus to have been exactly what I did without paying
the taxes themselves. I had supposed at the sitting that it meant I had also
paid them, but it seems that the communicator was drawing a distinction
between what lie found I had done after his death and what I had done in
1892, so that we have in the incident a very pretty case of refined accuracy
in the message which is much more like independent intelligence than
anything we know of in telepathy. — J. H. H.

Note 91. — My cousin, wife of this Robert McClellan, confirms my state-
ment about father's excitement regarding this campaign, and adds a feature
which makes the statement here still more pertinent, and which I did not
know. I interpreted it to mean excitement with reference to the political
situation in general, but it seems that, while this is true, father showed
special excitement in his talk, or attempt to talk in a whisper, to my cousin

XLI.]

Appendix III.

533

i Robert. His wife, the Lucy of these records, was present at the time, and
lays that rather became so excited and overstrained himself so to talk, that
j they had to stop him and leave to avoid temptation for him, fearing that he
j would have a spasm of the larynx. — J. H. H.

Note 92. — After what I have said about father's excitement in the previous
note the pertinence of the statement here about 44 the talk with R. about the
President " is apparent without comment. It is to be remarked also that
it is not a case of suggestion from me, as my question about the walking
stick was not calculated in any respect to suggest any such remark from
any one except a consciousness to which the unity of such experiences

Very considerable interest attaches to the attempt to answer my question
regarding the 4 4 gold bug" on the cane, which I did not suggest, asking
merely what it was. The additional notes which I made to the sitting
(February 22nd, Notes 35 and 36, p. 415) in which the spontaneous reference
| to a cane was made will explain much of the pertinence of this passage.
| But some features of the case will have to be repeated here in order to
indicate the significance of the communication. I stated in that note that
I did not know, or had completely forgotten about the stick that was
evidently in the communicator's mind, and that I had in mind, as here, the
stick with the 44 gold bug " on it and which I had given him. Now it turns
out that he had another cane with a curved end which had been given him
by his brother-in-law for the one with the initials on it given him by us
children, and which the brother-in-law had lost. This curved cane father
had broken in two by some prying, and mended with a tin sheath
or ring about four inches long. This is evidently the cane father had
in mind in the message of February 22nd (p. 397) and as he had used
it for many years (since 1876) it was natural to mention it for identi-
fication. But it was the fact that it was broken that moved my aunt
Nannie to give me the money to buy him another, asking me not to tell him
who gave it to him. I bought the 14 gold bug " stick and gave it to him with-
out telling him that it was a present from his sister. Now it will appear that
j when he says in answer to my question 44 who gave you that walking stick ?"
| that I did so, he is correct from the point of view of the stick which I had in
mind, but when he says that he told Dr. Hodgson about it he is technically
wrong, though right as to the general circumstance. If we could assume
that in the confusion evident on February 22nd the 4 4 gold bug" cane was
actually alluded to as well as the broken cane, but not definitely enough to
be recognised, the reference here would be intelligible. The allusion to the
''ring on it" would appear to prove that he had in mind the broken cane,
of which I was not thinking, as it was the old broken stick that had this
"ring" on it. But 4 4 ring" would possibly describe the 44 gold bug"
as accurately as the tin sheath on the older cane. The frequent
hesitation and dissent in the communication, however, suggests either
that Rector's memory was playing a part in it until corrected, or that
kther was thiuking about the case, and after the writing of the 44 ring"
dearly, he suddenly recalls the right cane and suggests the 4 4 gold bug"
which is drawn, though it is possible that this was what he had in mind from

belonged.

534

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

the moment that I asked my question, and that it was hard to avoid confu-
sion with the more familiar cane and incidents of the earlier sitting.

But even the technical mistake about the giver of the cane that he had in
mind has the great importance of showing the unity of consciousness and
])ersonal identity between this and the sitting of February 22nd, and brings
«ut reason for natural confusion in the necessary distinctions to be made
between three walking sticks under the difficulties of communication which
are so marked in these experiments. — J. H. H.

Note 93. — I find that the chest which I had in mind here was one of my
grandfather's brought from Scotland and not bought at an auction by father.
The attic too that I had in mind was over the kitchen in his house out West.
But my stepmother does not remember any 4 * chest " kept there, but only
some empty boxes which, so far as she can remember, were gotten at a store
and not at an auction. Moreover the chest I had in mind was left behind
in Ohio when he moved West. The incident then remains meaningless as it
stands.— J. H. H.

July 6th, 1900. — Whilst revising the proofs and examining the record
carefully, a suspicion came across my mind that my father might have had
in mind a small cloaet under an attic-like stairway leading up stairs, and in
which I knew he kept his clothes. I at once wrote to my stepmother and
brother to know if father's cane was kept in this closet both before and
after his death, and also if there was a chest kept there that had been bought
at an auction. The replies were that he kept all his clothes in this closet,
that the cane which he did not use was kept there before his death, and that
the broken cane which he had so long used and to which reference is here
made was put into this closet after his death and kept there until the
house was sold ; also that there was no chest kept there. The allusion
to "attic," to his clothing being kept in the 44 chest," to the putting of
his cane there by my stepmother, are suggestive in spite of the confusion.
-^J.H.H.

July 11th, 11)00. — I have just received a letter from one of my aunts in
response to an inquiry about another matter altogether, and in which she
incidentally and without any knowledge of its pertinence mentions one fact
that I knew and another that I did not know regarding the chest mentioned
in my first note. Speaking of his military outfit she says : 44 All I know of
your father's sword was when it was carefully laid away in father's Scotch
4 chist ' in the old attic. When I was a little girl 1 would cautiously peek in
to see it and your father's military hat. I thought they were the grandest
things that could possibly be made."

I myself remember that father kept his military suit in that chest, but
do not remember seeing the sword in it, or that the chest was kept in the
attic. I remember the chest in the new house built in 1861, when the jjart
of the house in which the old attic existed was taken down.

Have we here then a confusion of two separate facts connected with
father's clothes ? Have we an attempt to mention the chest in which his
military suit was kept, and an association in a confused state with the closet
in which later his clothes and cane were kept ? — J. H. H.

XL!.]

Appendix III.

535

Note 94. — The difficulties attending the final attainment of my informa-
tion on the passage from John McClellan, and the reference to his lost finger
and connection with the war, should be a matter of record here. The clue to
my identification of him with the father of my uncle James McClellan was
found in the latter's communications on June 6th (p. 470) in which he
apparently meant that it was his father that had been in the war. I asked
the three sons then living whether their father had been in any war, and
received from all three a negative reply. But finding in the history of the
county in which he had lived that a 44 John McClelland " had been com-
missioned as ensign in the war of 1812 on July 15th, of 1810, I told each of
them about the fact, and they admitted that it must have been their father,
as they did not know any other John McClellan in that county. The next
difficulty which I had to meet was the spelUng of the name with the 44 d,"
which I had never known to be a fact. Inquiry, however, showed that the
family originally spelled it either way, and as the history mentioned had
spelled that of Captain Robert McClellan, about whom and about whose con-
nection with that war there was neither doubt nor difference of opinion, in
both ways, I felt that nothing stood in the way of supposing that the John
McClellan meant was the father of the McClellans connected with me,
though it led necessarily to the rejection of several incidents as either
unverifiable or false. But in order to obtain official and documentary
evidence of a better sort I applied in Washington, D.C., for information
regarding the enlistment of John McClellan in the war of 1812. The only
hopeful resource was the Pension Office which, however, keeps only the
record of those who received pensions, and not of the enlistments. I did not
find there any John McClellan or McClelland who would fit my case, though
I found a number of pensioners by that name. In the meantime I found by
inquiry among the McClellan family which I knew, indisputable evidence
that the John McClellan mentioned in the history of Greene County, Ohio,
was not the father of my uncle James McClellan. I found that James
Mcdellan's father, John McClellan, had left Westmoreland County, Pa., in
1813, three years after the date of the commission of the John McClellan
mentioned in the history of Greene County, Ohio, and settled that year in
Wayne County, Ohio. Here he remained until 1831, when he moved to
Greene County, of the same state. I also found that the J ohn McClelland
mentioned in the history of said county had resigned his commission on
August 15th, 1815. The case was thus clearly against the identification of
this John McClelland with John McClellan, the father of Jarnes McClellan,
and in favour of the memory of his sons that their father had not been in the
war of 1812.

But the course of my inquiries brought me upon the suspicion that this
John McClelland mentioned in the history of the county was the real person
for whom I was seeking, and I employed a lawyer friend living in the county
to thoroughly investigate the case for me. Among the first pieces of
important information was the following from a relative of this John
McClellan (omitting the 44 d" in further mention of him). Mr. Kyle, my
lawyer, says : 44 A man by the name of Howard Sparrow, who married a
daughter of Mrs. Beamer, who was the daughter of John McClellan, of
Clifton, came to my office to-day and said that he had heard his mother-in-law.

536

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

Mrs. Beamer, speak many times of the fact that her father, John
McClellan, had lost a linger, and his best recollection is that it was the front
finger on the left hand. This was lost by him while he was in the army/*
From a nephew of this John McClellan, living in another county of the
state, I learn that this uncle by name was in the war of 1812, and that prior
to his death he was generally known as u uncle John McClellan " in the
community. There are several corroborations of this fact from other sources.
This nephew thinks that his uncle was an officer in this war, but does not
know whether his uncle lost a finger in it or not.

A later communication from Mr. Kyle says : " I made a trip to Clifton
where John McClellan was buried. I found Henry Jamison, whose mother
was a daughter of John McClellan, of Clifton. The old family Bible shows
that he died December 18th, 1850, and they also knew that he was sick about
six years before his death. Harry Jamison's father died seven years ago,
aged eighty-one years, and he, George Jamison, was a cousin of the Hatha -
ways. Henry Jamison was of the opinion that the Hatha ways lived over
toward Dayton where the Jamisons lived, and of course the inference would
be that if the Jamisons lived in the same neighbourhood and were cousins,
and the daughter of John McClellan married a Jamison, who was a cousin of
the Hatha ways, that the families probably associated together."

44 Henry Jamison also said he remembered of the name of Williams being
mentioned, but could not give any account as to how or to what extent they
were connected with the McClellaus."

Later information from the same source is : 44 The Williams are a hard
family to trace, for the reason that there are so many branches of this
family, and they probably associated with John McClellan along in 1825 or
soon after. The Hatha ways are a family of early date, but seem to have
disappeared in the early part of the century."

Note 95. — While reading the page proofs it occurred to me that my
uncle was here alluding to my contain Nannie, and not his sister-in-law.
I was prompted to this by the possible mistake a little later in the name
* 4 cousin Annie." The statement " Annie (my sister) and she are cousins,'*
suggests the inference also, as it is true on that supposition. The mention
of 44 cousin Annie " follows immediately the mention of my sister Annie, and
Rector (or the 44 machine ") may have confused my uncle's 44 cousin Nannie "
with the name 44 Annie " just mentioned. The obverse error seems to have
occurred in the communications of my cousin Robert McClellan (p. 231-235)
where the proximity of the attempt apparently to say 4 * cousin Annie" (my
sister) to his mention of 44 aunt Nannie " converted the former into 4 4 cousin
Nannie." Both are cases of Opisthomimesis (Of. Footnote, p. 239). The
interpretation in each case is confirmed by two considerations : (1) The
phonetic character of many mistakes. (2) The point de repere of the relation-
ship in the two cases. My cousin stated all the relationships in his communi-
cation with reference to himself. My uncle stated them all with reference
to myself. The "cousin Annie " of my uncle's message is the same person
as the 44 cousin Nannie" of my cousin's communication, namely, the sister of
Robert McClellan. She was very intimate with my uncle and his family,
having boarded her two daughters there while they were in the high school
(August 6th, 1901).— J. H. H.

XLL]

Appendix IV.

537

APPENDIX IV.

Experiments on the Identification op Personality.

Introduction.

The following experiments were undertaken for the general purpose
of illustrating certain features of the phenomena that have proved
of so much interest in the case of Mrs. Piper. They incidentally
illustrate also, if they do not prove, the fact that identification of
personality may even be possible under less rigid conditions than we
have been insisting upon in our reports. But of this in the proper
place. The first duty is to describe the modus operandi of the
experiments, and then summarise the specific objects in mind when
undertaking them.

Now the Piper phenomena represent a type of experiment in which
we can determine the conditions only at one end of the line. We know
neither whether there is any other personality at the other end than
that of the brain through which we obtain our facts ; nor what the
sources of misunderstanding may be, if such personalities other than
that of this brain actually exist. Much less do we know with any
definiteness the conditions that may aid or hamper real or apparent
communications between two worlds, or two different sets of brain
conditions. We have only a set of messages presented to us, purport-
ing to come from discarnate spirits, and without the accompanying
criteria which enable us in our everyday experience to test the source
of the communications from one person to another. If, for instance,
we hear a voice in actual life, what it says may confirm our conjecture
as to the speaker, and we can also try for some other and different
test of the source of the voice. But in the Piper case we have nothing
hut the bare content of the message, filtered and probably distorted
through the medium's subliminal consciousness, and hence there are
fcerious difficulties in forming our judgment of the case. But if we
can institute a system of experiments in which both the communicator
*nd the sitter are limited to conversing with each other through
messages resembling those in the Piper case, we may come to some

538

J. H. Hyslop, PLD.

[part

better understanding of what we must allow for in communications
obtained with genuine mediums.

With a view, therefore, to illustrate various aspects of the Piper
phenomena by experiments in which I could study the conditions at
both ends, I arranged a telegraph line between two of the buildings of
Columbia University which were about four or five hundred feet apart
The termini were so arranged that parties could be brought to them
without seeing each other. I had two telegraph operators employed
for carrying on the experiments. The plan was to select two persons
who were well acquainted with each other, and who had enjoyed more
or less of a common life together, so that incidents common to both
their lives could easily be found for the experiment. But only one of
the two persons was to know who was at the other end of the line, and
it was his duty to select incidents common to the two lives, while I
was to send telegraph messages about them to the other person. This
latter had to identify the sender, to whom he had not the slightest
clue except such as could be ascertained from the messages.

I usually accompanied the person sending the messages, so as to aid
in their formation and proper order. At the other end I had an
assistant who was to explain to the receiver what he was to do, and
also to send any replies that were necessary, as guesses or identi-
fications. The assistant was also to make a note of any remarks
of the receiver that had a bearing on his guess or decision, and to
ascertain by inquiry the reasons for the receiver's judgment in any
instance. Occasionally I took this place, and the assistant directed
the sending of messages.

I usually allowed the person who was to act as sender to select
the one to whom he wished to send messages, but with a strict
understanding that no mention was to be made of the experiment.
This enabled me or my assistant to arrange with the would-be
receiver to take part in the experiment without his knowing
the sender at all, and without his knowing the purpose of the experi-
ment until brought to the end of the telegraph line. Here he was
merely told that his duty was to ascertain who it was that was
sending hi in telegrams, and to say when he was convinced beyond
doubt of the identity of this person. His inferences and judgments
were telegraphed back to the sender, in order to regulate the latter -i
return messages. This was important, because it was a part of the
plan followed in the selection of incidents, to start with as vague
general messages as possible and to feel one's way to identification, in
order to see how early a suspicion of the right person would arise and
how indefinite were the incidents necessary to this end.

Also — in order to make the mental situation as much like the Pi pet
case as the circumstances would allow — I had incidents or statement'

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

53&

selected that were either not true, or irrelevant, nonsensical, and mis-
leading, so that the receiver had to make his decision in spite of
contradictions and incidents that were not really what they may have
appeared to be, and which often had the effect of turning his mind
off some particular scent; since it was important, for the sake of
studying the receiver's mind, to keep him reflecting on more than one
possible sender. It was found necessary to get the cumulative effect of
true and identifiable incidents, to outweigh those that were calculated
to produce caution and scepticism.

There are no doubt some disadvantages in this deliberate production
of incidents intended to confuse the receiver; since the messages
could have been sufficiently vague and indefinite to get an accumu-
lative effect without misleading him, while this policy might suggest a
suspicion that no part of the experiment was bond fide at all. But
this is not a serious disadvantage, as in the Piper case there must be
uncertainty in this very respect, and it is precisely these uncertainties
that force the sitter to wonder whether the incident is what it
purports to be, and whether it has the source that it claims to have.
Consequently, in order to imitate that experiment, I considered it
best to create as nearly as possible the same mental situation for the
receiver of the messages as the sitter must have in the Piper experi-
ments. The construction and arrangement of the telegrams were
made with that situation in view. There was only one thing that I
could not do, namely, state immediately some striking common incident
which might lead at once to identification, as this would have prevented
any study of the effect of vague statements upon the judgment of the
receiver.

The results of the experiments are arranged in three groups, which
I have called respectively Groups A, B, and C. Group A represents
experiments in which the main or only purpose was to identify a
single person, and not much attention was paid to the question
whether the irrelevant and false incidents led to any correct identi6oa-
tion or not.

Group B, of which there were two experiments, consists of attempts
to personate two or more persons in such a way that the main part of
the experiment should point to one person, while others might also be
identified and distinguished from the main person by incidents that
could not possibly belong to the evidence for that person. Thus, the
receiver was to decide spontaneously whom certain incidents repre-
sented, and (o decide in the same way, without interrogation, the
incompatibility of the other facts with the same personality. The
results show how far this was accomplished. It was difficult, of
course, to keep this group and the first wholly distinct in character.
But in one particular they are distinguishable, namely, that they are

540

J. U. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

designed to represent incidental identification of other persons, while
chiefly occupied with the identification of one par tic alar person by
cumulative incidents.

Group C represents experiments in imitation of the Piper pheno-
mena in respect of incoherences, nonsense, and various imperfections
of spelling and expression. The problem of identification is the same in
this group as in the second, except that in it the more important element
is the number of persons to be recognised incidentally, in addition to
the main personality concerned. But the main characteristic is the
more perfect imitation of the Piper phenomena. One difference, too,
is the fact that this group was carried on without the telegraph lines.
The questions were prepared beforehand, and presented to the re-
ceiver to be read and examined without going through the more
exciting formality of telegraphing. The same fact is true of the
second experiment in Group B.

I may now summarise the several objects of the whole series of
experiments. I was extremely careful not to breathe the first
of these objects to any one, not even to my assistants, so that
the results might be entirely spontaneous and without the influence
of suggestion from me.

I. To test the extent to which intelligent persons would spon-
taneously select trivial and unimportant incidents for the purpose of
identification — that is, incidents that were not connected, or not
necessarily connected, with the main habits of their lives.

II. To test the accuracy of the identification in connection with
both individual and collective incidents, and especially to test how
slight or how definite the incident had to be in order to suggest
rightly the person it was intended to represent.

III. To test the success and personal assurance of the receiver of
the messages in guessing who is the true sender, in spite of some mes-
sages that are misleading or even false, but the bulk of which involves
sufficient cumulative facts to overcome the natural scepticism and con-
fusion caused by incoherences and contradictions.

IV. To study the sources of misunderstanding that might arise
under such circumstances when one party was ignorant of the inten-
tions of the other, and the causes of mistakes in identification which we
can determine in my experiments, and which are likely to occur in
the Piper case.

Tn regard to the first of these objects, it is very interesting to
observe the uniformity with which perfectly intelligent persons
spontaneously chose what would generally be considered trivial
incidents in order to be identified. This seemed to naturally

Appendix IV.

541

recommend itself to them, — perhaps for the reason that trivial circum-
stances represent far more isolation than any chosen from the main
trend of life, though I noticed no consciousness of this fact in any
one. It was simply the instinctive method which every one tended
to adopt. The records show very distinctly that, if left to them-
selves, men will naturally select unimportant incidents for proof of
their identity, and it is one of the most interesting features of this
choice that the individual relied wholly upon the laws of association
to recall what was wanted after deciding on the nature of the
incidents to be chosen.

Very often there were interesting illustrations of those capricious
revivals in memory of remote incidents which not only resemble so
much the incidents in the Piper sittings in triviality, but also represent
the caprices and incoherences of associative recall, intelligible to the
subject on reflection, but hardly so to the outside observer. At any
rate, the results in this regard completely remove all objections to the
Piper phenomena from the standpoint of the triviality of the incidents
chosen for identification, and that is an accomplishment of some worth.
On reflection, most persons will at once admit the superior value of
such incidents for scientific purposes ; but too often, under the a priori
assumption — encouraged or created by a false idealism about a trans-
cendental state of existence — that di sea mate spirits ought to show an
interest in more lofty matters, we suppose that the fact of triviality
indicates a greater probability for a medium is tic origin than for a
spiritistic one. In reality, if the iucidents represented were what we
might naturally regard as important, they would be of the sort that
would either be un verifiable at ail, or so common to the lives of people in
general that they would be exposed to the fatal objection of guessing
and inference. But if the messages describe uncommon and isolated
incidents, this explanation must be rejected and the evidential
character of the facts recognised, whatever we may think about the
conditions of existence to which they may be supposed to testify.

But after all the spiritistic problem is not at stake here and
perhaps allusion to it is irrelevant, as the real question in these experi-
ments concerns only the place of trivial incidents in the evidence.

These incidents, being such as are not likely to occur often,
materially assist identification, while it is obvious that we can infer
nothing from them as to the general conditions of life of intelligent
persons. This fact was evident in the experiments here recorded, as
tie persons chosen for the experiments were of the class whose
intellectual occupations and habits of mind could not be depreciated,
and yet the incidents chosen for the suggestion of personal identification
were much the same as those with which we have to deal in the Piper
case. This first object of the experiments, therefore, has been fully

Digitized byCjOOQlC

542

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[PABT

satisfied, and the evidential value of these phenomena vindicated,
whatever the theory we adopt for explanation of them.

The problem presented in the other three objects will have to
be studied in the details of the records, and in incidents that I,
as the experimenter, could observe more readily than a mere reader
of the record would observe without suggestion.

But I must first call attention to an important and characteristic
difference between these experiments and the Piper case. In the latter
there is presumably the utmost effort on the part of the communicator
to be identified, and we cannot suppose that there is conscious attempt
to divert, confuse, or deceive the sitter as to the personal identity of the
alleged communicator. But the purposes of my experiments required
some attempt to hold the receiver of messages back from too hasty iden-
tification, and in some cases the use of material for at least possible
deception. The object was not merely to see how easily the com
municator could prove his identity — for this could have been done
under the circumstances with the greatest ease — but it was to imitate
as far as possible the conditions of the Piper record, which exhibit the
necessity of a cumulative character in the evidence and a correspond-
ing suspense of judgment, with as much freedom from suggestion and
illusion of interpretation as possible, in order to justify any rational
conclusion whatever. Hence, to effect this result, and to study the
nature of the incidents upon which correct identification could b*
based — that is, the degree of evidence, general or specific, on whicli
a true judgment could rest, — I had to adopt a policy of actualh
holding the receiver back from immediate identification. The in
-cidents chosen at the outset had to be as vague and indefinite at
possible, and the communicator had to feel his way along gradual 1}
by giving general, or presumably general, incidents with as littl«
suggestive power as possible. This plan enables us to determine th<
degree of evidence that is at times sufficient for identification, ant
it is often remarkable how vague the circumstance may be that
leads to correct identification, as may be remarked in the specia
study of the results.

The necessity of following the reverse method of communicating
the incidents to what is naturally supposed to be the procedure ir
the Piper phenomena is due to the reverse conditions in the two cases
In my experiments identification could be easily effected, while in th<
Piper case the identification is either difficult, or that form of it i
difficult which requires the spiritistic interpretation for its ex
planation. Consequently I had to cultivate indefiniteness of incident.*
at the outset with increasingly specific character as the experiment
proceeded. One advantage, however, I must claim for the expert
ments is that they illustrate and prove, — as the Piper case illustrate;

Appendix IV.

543

but does not prove, — the remarkable way in which even the most
general incidents may lead to correct identification, thus strengthening
the force of those which are specific. There are also good oppor-
tunities here for the study of illusions in interpretation, and I shall
call attention to this in the proper cases. The object of the diversions
and false incidents, often suggesting other persons than the one
to be identi6ed, after what has been said about the use of general
incidents and the necessity of suspending judgment, will be apparent
without any elaborate explanation. They were important aids in
the more complete imitation of the Piper case.

Before describing the results in detail, 1 must make one more
remark. I do not pretend that these experiments have any im-
portance except as illustrations. They are by no means numerous
enough to prove much that is important. They are mere suggestions
of what can be done in this direction, and studies of the
resources of chance and illusion in concrete instances. But they
cannot be considered as more than tentative efforts to exemplify
and study, in the concrete, the phenomena that are connected
with the problem of identification under such exceptional circum-
stances as the Piper record exhibits. Others more generally occupied
with experimental psychology than I am may take up the question
and reduce it to more perfect form and results. I have been obliged
to content myself with the suggestion of it, and with the illustration
and at least tentative vindication of the principles upon which the
evidential force of the Piper reports is based.

ANALY8I8 OF THE EXPERIMENTS.

When it comes to a detailed examination of the experiments
several problems present themselves. They relate to the complex
aspects of the Piper phenomena, which are not always so clear as to be
free from a certain kind of criticism and objection, at least of the
a priori sort, even when we feel ourselves able to overcome it. I have
dealt with the objection based on the triviality of the incidents, and
have shown that this would apply equally to the cases represented
in the experiments here recorded. But there is also one that depends
on two false assumptions, which may as well be exposed at once. It
is that discarnate spirits, if they are supposed to exist, seem to show
arrested development in the kind of talk in which they engage. I
have only to say in reply to this that the present experiments would
seem to show the same condition, if we relied upon the incidents
chosen to form our conception of the habits of mind of the communi-
cators. Few, if any, persons could even guess the character or habits
of the communicators in my experiments, and I doubt if it would

Digitized by Google

544 /. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PARij

often be possible in any tests for personal identity. But, supposing
that it is possible, it is not a necessary accompaniment of the effort
to prove one's identity. The incidents most conclusive for all such
efforts must be those trivial facts which can hardly be duplicated
in two lives. This aside, however, the attempt to discredit discarnate
spirits and their habits of mind by reflection on their choice of in-
cidents to prove their identity meets its refutation in the necessity
of coming to the same conclusion about the communicators in my
experiments, whom I specially chose as being sane and intelligent men,
with occupations supposed to be above trivialities.

I shall have an opportunity to discuss this problem in another con-
nection, and only mention it here as preliminary to another question
closely allied to it. I mean the mistakes of memory which must un-
doubtedly be attributed to the communicators in the Piper case. It
may not appear a sufficient answer to this to say that the same mistake
is noticed in the sitters, though this is an interesting fact. But I call
attention to the mistakes of memory for the purpose of emphasising
l he circumstance that they appear in the present experiments, pre-
cisely as they appear in the Piper phenomena. The assumptions that
are made to discredit the spiritistic character of the Piper case are — (1)
that discarnate spirits ought not to make any mistakes; and (2) that
OUT own memories are leas liable to illusion than those of discarnate
spirits. I loth of thes. assumptions are baseless. The doctrine of
evolution ought to make us humble enough to avoid the first assump-
tion, to my not fling of t he fact that the wonder should rather be that
we should have any memory of this life at all, supposing that we
jfurvivpd. I shall next summarise the several points to come under j
review, which imitate ffljat we have to deal with in the Piper case.
They are ( 1 ) Error* of memory and their effect on the results.
(2) Errors of interpretation. (3) Success and failure in identifica-
tion. Each of these questions will have its subordinate aspect.

I . —Errors of Memory.

The illusion* l memory to which attention is here called are on the
side of the receiver of messages, anu illustrate the difficulty of identifi-
timcH when wi should have expected it to be easy. Perhaps it
better to call some of them failures of memory, but in any
are that type of error in recollection which would adequately
* (understanding in a communicator. They often show how
ijrone's statement is when not accompanied by a record
fit ten at the time. The first of this kind is that of the
i experiment iu Group A, when reporting to me her
Had not my question been recorded it would

Digitized by

ptten at the
fysl experii]

xu]

Appendix IV.

545

have been suspected of greater definiteness than it possessed. The
error on the part of the receiver, however, shows the fusion of mental
imagery from her own memory with that conveyed by my question,
and would spoil any narrative of the affair which had to depend on
memory alone (p. 554).

But more important errors of memory are such as show complete
failure to identify the communicator when he was confident that his
incident would succeed in his purpose. They are illustrated in the
following cases :— Group A, Exp. II., Ques. 3 (p. 555) ; Receiver's
remark after Question 6 (p. 556) ; Exp. VI., most of the questions
(p. 559) ; Exp. IX., note to Ques. 4 (p. 569) ; Exp. XVI., Ques. 3, 5,
6, and 7 (p. 589). Group B, Exp. II., Ques. 21 and Ques. 30 (pp. 603,
605). Group C, Exp. I., Ques. 11 and 15 (pp. 612, 613). Also
Group A, Exp. XL, Ques. 15, 16, and 17 (p. 578); Exp. XL, Ques.
21, note (p. 579); Exp. XVII., Ques. 17 (p. 593).

There are many others of like import, though not so striking. But
these suffice to show many instances in which identification ought
to take place, but fails. Of course some of the incidents were made
vague for the very purpose of testing whether identification would
occur on slight grounds, and the failure should not be surprising.
But in some cases the very incident which the communicator thought
would without fail identify himself had no suggestive power whatever.
This was very noticeable in Group A, Exp. XL, Ques. 21 (p. 579) ;
and Exp. XV., Ques. 19 (p. 588). Such facts, involving what is
verifiable on the part of the communicator, show what is possible in
cases of alleged spirits — assuming their reality — and show that the
failure to identify may be wholly due to the sitter. This is specially
to be remarked in Exp. VI. of Group A (p. 559), where the com-
municator finally came to the conclusion that, if he had been a
discarnate spirit, it would have been impossible to identify himself
to the receiver, owing to the receiver's inability to remember specific
incidents in their common lives. The value of this case for this
illustration, moreover, lies in the circumstance that, like most cases of
spirit communication, a considerable interval of time elapsed between
the period of common life and the communications, and the com-
municator himself could not recall any incidents other than those
chosen to prove his existence or identity. Exp. X. in Group A (p. 572)
is a precisely similar case. It ought to be apparent what a large
share forgetfulness on the part of the sitter has in the difficulties
of identification, when attempting to obtain communications from a
transcendental state of existence, to say nothing of the forgetfulness
of an alleged spirit. The same fact is illustrated in my own sittings
with Mrs. Piper, in which my complete forgetfulness of certain
incidents led to confusion on my part and failure to identify the

546

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PABT

communicator, or even the accusation of falsehood. Some examples
of this have been given in my report of these sittings (p. 131).

These are of two kinds in the experiments. The first are those in
which the receiver recalled an occasion and the communicator had in
mind a totally different fact. The second class represents incidents
of an apparent significance which turns out to be wholly due to
chance, since they represent very different facts in the mind of the
communicator.

As illustrations of the first type the following instances may be
observed. Group A, Exp. VI., Ques. 5 and 8 (p. 560) ; Exp. XIV.,
Ques. 3 and 6 (p. 583) ; Exp. XVII, Ques. 10, 17 and 21 (p. 592);
Group B, Exp. L, Ques. 2 (p. 596); Exp. II., Ques. 10, 11 and 12
(p. 600). No special importance attaches to these cases of error except
that they should put us on our guard respecting the temptation
to assurance iu identification. There are many incidents common
to various persons in life and we may easily forget the fact and
assume specific peculiarities that do not exist. This, of course, is a
truism, and scarcely needs mention here except as indication of the
precautions which I have had in mind in forming my opinion on the
more serious case of Mrs. Piper. It should be remarked, however,
that the incidents that here occasion misinterpretation are often of
that general kind which the communicator would recognise as indefinite
and liable to the illusion, so that as objections to the Piper case
they hardly hold. One important object in these experiments
must not be forgotten, and this is that a deliberate effort had to
be made to conceal identity for the sake of testing the accuracy of
identification by indefinite incidents, and hence it would inevitably
occur that the communicator would state general incidents leading to
wrong apperceptions. The incidents which constitute the strength of
the Piper case, as well as the identification in the present experiments,
are far more specific than those that give rise to the misinterpreta-
tions here considered. Besides, there are more numerous cases in
these very experiments in which general incidents were correctly
recalled by the receiver, and in which the identification was correct
and quite assured through them, especially when they were cumulative.
The correct judgments quite offset the errors. Nevertheless the errors
are reasons for caution.

But the most dangerous source of illusion is that type of coincidence
which turns out on inquiry from the communicator to have been due
to mere chance. The best illustration of this is the cumulative
argument, as it appeared to my judgment as receiver, in Group B,

2. — Errors op Interpretation.

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

547

Exp. II., Ques. 10, 11 and 12 p. (600). Here I thought I had a
conclusive case of inductive inference as to the person I named as the
sender of the messages, but it turned out that, in spite of this cumula-
tive character of the evidence from my point of view, the communicator
had no such incidents in mind as I had imagined. It is true that the
messages were extremely vague and had not suggestive power taken
alone, except Ques. 11, but they are most important examples of the
danger of inductive inferences on indefinite hints. I had, however, no
assurance to satisfy me until Question 27 was sent, which confirmed
strongly the impression given by 26. But it will be apparent that my
assurance was very pardonable here when we recall that Mr. Marvin, who
had been mentioned in my reply, just happened to come in as my reply
arrived, and seeing the possible meaning of the initials G. P., clinched
the case by sending the initials of Phinuit, Rector and Tmperator. Cf.
G. P. interruptions (pp. 211-213) and Miss X's incident (p. 202). My
inference at that point became correct, though up to that point it was
an illusion, and the coincidence, in spite of collective incidents favour-
ing it, was due to mere chance. The fact, therefore, has its important
lesson of caution, and justifies the demands that both specific incidents
and a cumulative mass of facts in spiritistic communications should be
sufficient to overcome the possibilities of chance as an explanation.

The next incident of a similar character, though not cumulative,
is in Group A, Exp. III., Ques. 6 (p. 557). Somewhat similar cases
are Group A, Exp. VI., Ques. 5 (p. 560), and Group B, Exp. II.,
Ques. 3 (p. 599). They show a temptation to identify through very specific
incidents which are not in the mind of the communicator, or which
merely chance to be common to both persons or exceptional. Of course,
in the case of these experiments the nature of them made it necessary
to make some attempts to identify that were not bond fide, in order to
effect a better imitation of the Piper case, in which confusion often occurs.
The objection would not apply in cases where there must be assumed a
bond fide attempt to identify. Only a misapperception would be
possible in this case, or failure to remember. Moreover the objection
is more than offset by the large number of correct recalls of persons to
whom the incidents would apply as well as to the communicator. In
fact this is so frequent as to favour our confidence in memory in spite
of occasional or even frequent mistakes. Still we cannot be too cautious
in a matter where chance is possible to any extent. Of course, the
Piper case represents too much cumulative evidence to be amenable
to this objection. For instance, what passes for an incident in it often
involves several coincident facts that can hardly be put together by
chance. Thus two distinct names, with their specific relation and
some characteristic fact in connection with them, will be mention
just as they would be in actual life in any narrative involving

548

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

natural unity of consciousness. But in the present experiments the
incidents are rather isolated, so that they get a cumulative character
only by the comparison of one with another. Consequently, the result
in these experiments, if favourable to identification, must give a fortiori
force to the evidence in the Piper instance. But without urging this
comparison at present, there is the admissible danger of not allowing
sufficiently for chance in isolated cases of interpretation leading to
identification, and we have always to insist on cumulative and specific
evidence transcending all possibilities of mere accident.

The mistakes in identification furnish a good introduction to
comments on the comparison of the successes with the failures in it
The most striking feature of the experiments in this respect is
the fact that identification takes place correctly in so many
instances on such slight evidence without any cumulative force.
It is a striking fact that the experiments actually contrast with the
Piper phenomena in this respect. The latter are not only specific facts
of very great argumentative force but have that peculiar complexity
of cumulative character which is generally illustrated in all such
ordinary matters as the conversation between friends over past
recollections. In these experiments the complexity of the incidents
is far less noticeable, and yet the identification is assured and correct.
Quite often a single incident is sufficient to determine the result, and
when we can ascertain the reasons from the communicator as well as
the receiver, we find them entirely satisfactory. It is interesting to
observe that in no case have we allowed ourselves to be governed by
so simple a criterion in the Piper phenomena. There we have insisted
on more rigid evidence and methods. If then the identification can be
justified in the weaker case, it must be justified in the stronger.

There is another point also of some importance in estimating the
value of the evidence in these experiments. It is the fact that the
identification has to be effected only by incidents and without any
suggestion of names. The communicator has to be ascertained solely
by the mention of incidents calculated to suggest him. This is often
the case in the Piper experiments, but there we are often given
a clue in the definite mention of the name of the person from
whom the message purports to come. This gives a decided advantage
for identification which my experiments do not give. With a certain
kind of incidents this linking of the name with them is liable to pro-
duce an illusion of identity ; but it affords a definite standard for the
distinction between the true and the false, and enables the mind to
apply more safely the cumulative argument, while it also puts the

3. — Success and Failure in Identification.

XLl]

Appendix IV.

549

sitter in a position to measure more effectively the nature of test inci-
dents, and gives that complexity which the unity of consciousness
ought to show. Hence, if we can be so successful at identification by
mere incidents without names, and by far less specific facts than the
Piper case exhibits, we ought to appreciate the force of the argument
for some enormous supernormal powers on the part of Mrs. Piper,
whatever the theory we adopt to account for it.

With the advantage that the name is so often given in the Piper
case there goes, of course, the liability to illusions of apperception ;
Bince we may forget that general incidents may apply to other persons
besides the supposed communicator; yet this is perhaps the only
real objection to the importance of the phenomena as evidence of
the supernormal of some kind. The synthetic unity of individual
groups of incidents, to say nothing of the cumulative unity of the
separate cases when taken together, constitutes an overwhelming
argument for identity, on any theory we may choose to adopt as an
explanation. Illusions of apperception, if memory has any place in
scientific evidence at all, appear to be almost completely eliminated.

But I shall not insist farther on the a fortiori argument from my
experiments to the Piper case. My main object was only to call
attention to the fact that such a comparison could be made. What I
wish to emphasise here is the surprising readiness and correctness with
which identification took place in my experiments under less stringent
evidence than that which we have been demanding in psychical
research. I can lay no stress upon such cases as Exp. I. in Group
A (p. 553), for the reasons there explained. But I may express the
astonishment that I felt at the time at the readiness of the receiver's
guess when the question was so vague. I saw that identification could
easily occur under far less exacting conditions than I had dreamed
possible, accustomed as I was to treating the far more pertinent and
complex unity of the Piper phenomena with so much scepticism. It
became apparent at a glance that the incidents had to be far more
indefinite in order to secure failure and to test accurately the question
I was considering. Further, in spite of the most careful precautions
in the later experiments to make the incidents or questions more
indefinite and freer from suggestiveness, the identification often took
place in response to surprising indefiniteness and on the most slight
evidential clues, if the Piper case be the standard by which to
measure such evidence. The record shows this to any one who will
examine it carefully, and I need not mention specific instances of
it Only three failures may be said to have occurred, and one of
these was caused by a misunderstanding of the nature of the experi-
ment. This was Exp. XV., Group A (p. 586). The other two are
Exp. VI. (p. 559) and X (p. 572). The former finally succeeded in

Digitized by Google

550

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

identification, and cannot be marked as a total failure. Hence there
is but one total failure in identification, and I was struck at the time
with the cause of this failure, which was the undoubted inability to
spontaneously apply inductive reasoning to the messages. I found the
case an illustration of the difficulties under which a discarnate spirit
would have to labour in proving its existence to most people. I
exhausted all my resources, except giving my name, in the choice of
incidents by which to identify myself, and failed. It is true that they
were of a somewhat different kind from those in other experiments,
but they were all that I could command in the case, and seemed to me
in most instances to be very definite, as I still think they were. But
the fault was in the defective observation, recognition, and inductive
reasoning of the receiver. In all other cases, especially where the mind
of the receiver was alert and interested, the identification occurred
on slighter evidence than I had supposed possible.

In two of the experiments this identification and its assurance
were very striking. These are Exp. XIV., Group A (p. 583), and
Exp. I., Group B (p. 595). In the first of these I threw in incidents
for the purpose of diversion and confusion, as well as to test the
possibilities of my own identification without any temptation to fuse
my identity with that of the person chiefly concerned. The case
could be classed in Group B on this account. But the spontaneous
distinction between myself and the personality of others by the receiver
after Question 8 is clear. The second instance is still better. The
distinction between myself and the person I was representing was
marked and positive, which was just what I intended or hoped to see,
and all this, we must remember, was done without any suggestion of
names. [For Remarks on Personation see p. 617.]

The summary of the case for identification involves a distinction
between several forms of it. The main distinction must be between
the persons that were intended to be identified and those that were
not, and both compared with the failures. I shall group them as
follows : —

1. Number of cases identified that were intended. Class A.

2. Number of correct incidental identifications. Class B.

3. Number of failures at identification. Class C.

In Class A, I have placed only those representing the persons
acting as communicators, or, as in two cases, personated for the
purpose. I have placed one in the failures in spite of the fact that
it was due to a misunderstanding of what was wanted, and would in
all probability have been a success but for that misunderstanding. I

Class A.
17

Class B.
51

Class C.

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

551

have also placed a large number of successes among the incidental
cases, Class B, because they were not communicators. They represent
identification on slight but pertinent clues, and were perfectly correct,
though not always entitled to any importance from a scientific point
of view. Some of them, however, were actually intended in the
messages of the communicator, and might very well be reckoned
among the cases in Glass A. As it is, we have 17 successes against
2 failures, and on evidence immeasurably inferior to that in the Piper
case. If we now add to these — as we have a right to do from the
standpoint of intention on the part of the communicator — all those
among the incidental cases that were intended by the communicator
to mislead or encourage suspense of judgment on the part of the
receiver, we should have the following tabular account, thus reckoning
in Class A 24 intended identifications among those in Class B.

Class A. Class B. Class C.

41 27 2

This table makes the case stand 41 successes to 2 failures, with
the outstanding possibility that the 27 cases in Class B. might be
given some weight on the side of Class A. It must be remembered,
also, that I have left wholly out of account Exp. IX. in Group A
(p. 567), in which I might have counted several successes.

I add a few remarks concerning Group C. As intimated, it was
carried on without the telegraph arrangement. This enabled me to
imitate the Piper experiments more accurately. I could work up the
incidents so as to imitate the incoherences and confusion of different
incidents so common in the Piper record. If the case is examined, it
will be found to reproduce many of the features of the Piper sittings.
But in spite of incoherence and confusion of distinct incidents, the
"sitter" almost unfailingly identified the right person, even when
indicated out of his proper connection, or the right event or place, and
located them properly. I met the same surprise here, as in my first
I experiments, at the slightness of the clue necessary to lead to identifi-
cation. The direct recognition by Mr. G. of his father at the use of
the word " anthropogenic " (see p. 610) was a brilliant and suggestive
act. Nor was the recognition of his connection with a murderer less
interesting. But perhaps the slightest clue of all was that by which
be guessed Philadelphia (see p. 611). There was here nothing but a
remote symbolic suggestion, and yet it was prompt and accurate. The
miserable pun which I made on the name Housatonic (name of a
river) — namely, " How's a tonic," with a reference to saying mass for
some one's soul for the State in which the river is — did not fail to
suggest what I intended, in spite of the incoherence in the message.
It was also most interesting to remark that the two incidents which

j Digitized by Google

552

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

the father chose with the greatest confidence that they would identify
himself or his wife were the names of Harrison Avenue and Ives
Place, the latter being the name of the farm where the receiver was
born ! But if the reader will examine carefully the messages and the
guesses, he will find how astonishingly accurate the receiver was on
slight clues and amid difficulties that some of our scientific Philistines
would regard as insuperable. In other words, the judgment of
identification in this and the Piper case unquestionably represents some
claims to scientific consideration, to say the very least that can be said
of it. We may not be satisfied with the verdict in favour of spiritism
in either case, and I do not care to enforce that conclusion.; but on
any theory the significance of the facts for some important conclusion
must be recognised, and if experiments of this kind spontaneously
reproduce a record like that of the Piper sittings, we must admit that
the latter has some weight as evidence of spiritism. We find further
that these experiments completely refute all objections based on the
triviality of the incidents, and show indubitably that we have no right
to draw any conclusions from them as to the character or habits of
mind possessed by the communicators.

5. — Summary.

The important matters of interest in these experiments and com-
ments upon them may be summarised in the following manner, which
shows further the points of comparison between them and the Piper

case.

1. The spontaneous choice of trivial incidents by the communi-
cators for the purpose of identification.

2. The illegitimacy of inferences as to the character or mental
condition of communicators drawn from the nature of the incidents
for identification.

3. Correct identification of names from mere incidents common
to two lives, or correct judgments in regard to facts only hinted at.

4. Identification of persons on slight but pertinent clues, which
are without cumulative force.

5. The establishment of assurance in regard to the communicator,
in spite of incoherence and diversions or contradictions.

6. Errors of memory on the part of " sitters " that lead to con-
fusion and failure in recognition.

7. The natural differences in the personal equation affecting the
choice of incidents for identification, as illustrated in the failure to recog-
nise incidents or persons — e.g., Group A, Exp. I., Ques. 3, and others,

8. Occasional liability to illusion from the element of chance,
unless the incidents become cumulative enough to overcome it.

Digitized by Google

xll] Appendix IV. 553

9. Difficulty and confusion in the communicator when trying to
select at once incidents for identification.

This last feature cannot be appreciated by the reader of this record,
but could be detected only by an eye-witness of the experiments them-
selves. Being a witness of them I was struck by the fact which is
also noticeable in communications with the telephone when the party
is limited in time for his communications. The communicator's mind
being set in the direction of specifically pertinent incidents for iden-
tification in reference to a particular friend, and being limited in time
for their choice, there was the interesting mental struggle and con-
fusion which every one could observe for himself in the play of
association endeavouring to make the right selection of incidents
for the purpose. We can imagine the situation of a discarnate spirit
which can have but a few minutes at least for communication, and
probably working under enormous difficulties of which we know
nothing, to say nothing of the wrench that death might give the
memory, if the usual physiological theories of that faculty are to
be accepted.

GROUP A. -I.

Columbia University, January 30th, 1899.
Communicator : Mrs. H. Receiver : Miss B.

1. Mrs. H. sends telegram : Well, how are you ? It has been a good
many years since I first met you. You were about twelve or thirteen years
old, and wearing short dresses. We soon became good friends. Am I a
man or woman ? Can you guess ?

Miss B. (at other end) : That's Mary.
(I said, " You will have to guess again," and found from her remarks that
Miss B. thought she had made a mistake, though, in fact, she was correct.
-J. H. H.)

2. Telegram from Mrs. H. : I was married eight years ago, and you are
not married yet, I believe. At least, no one has told me of such a thing.
I have often seen you since our acquaintance both in New York and
elsewhere. In fact, I have spent summer vacations where you did the same,
though this was not where we met. It was not so far from New York.
Now guess again.

Miss B. : I think that's Mary again.
(I made some remarks to leave the impression that I did not know who
was at the other end of the line, and said that both she and I had to
find out. — J. EL H.)

3. Telegram from Mrs. H. : Were you ever in Boston ? Have you ever
taken a ride up the Hudson ? Do you like music ?

Miss B. : I never had the pleasure of meeting this person in Boston.
1 have been up the Hudson many times. Yes, I like music.

4. Telegram from Mrs. H. : I remember that you met an aunt of mine

Digitized by Google

554

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[PAKT

where you used to spend some of the vacations. She was a little hard of
hearing. She and I used to talk about it.
Miss B. : Mary again.
(" How do you know ? " I eaid-^J. H. H.)

Miss B. : Everything in the telegram points that way. She's the only
one that will answer to those in my mind.

5. Telegram from Mrs. H. : I used to go with your mother to concerts.
That was when you were young. We had such good times together. After-
wards we met in New York, and it has been some time since we have seen
each other. If I could well come to see her I would do so, but I have my
children to care for, and am too busy to take the time. Besides I live where
it is not so convenient to call as it was once.

Miss B. : I am certain of it. It is Mary. I know it cannot be
any one else.

(On inquiry why she had guessed my wife so quickly as to be practically
certain at the first telegram, though I succeeded in throwing her off the
scent for the moment, she replied that she knew from the age mentioned
that it could be no one else, and that at that age, 4 ' twelve or thirteen," she
was only at one place, and that was in Germany during the whole time.
This narrowed the guess down very much, and, of course, shows that my
question was a mistake on my part. I should have made the time more
indefinite. Had I known that this explicit age would have fixed both the
time and the number of acquaintances so narrowly, I should have said some-
thing more indefinite. Besides, there is the fact that both my acquaintance
with Miss B. and the difficulty I had in securing her co-operation, taken
with the fact that her family and mine exchange frequent social calls, would
tend to suggest my wife. Consequently, I cannot attach any interest to the
success of her guessing.

I do not require to record any of the remaining questions which I
intended to telegraph, or have telegraphed to her, but can only say that they
led gradually to more specific incidents in the lives of Mrs. H. and Miss B.,
so that if the guess was not made on the indefinite ones it could be made on
the more distinct incidents. The other cases are better. — J. H. H.)

I wrote to Miss B. a few days after the experiment to ascertain her
reasons for making the inference she did at once after the first message, and
also to see if my conjecture made above about the mental situation
calculated to suggest the communicator was correct. The following is the

Dear Professor Hyslop. — The impression I retain of the first telegram
is that it was as follows: "I met you abroad when you were twelve or
thirteen years of age in short dresses. I have met you since in this country
and we have become good friends. Am I a man or am I a woman ? " or words
to that effect. I answered, 14 Mary." This was the first and most natural
thing that occurred to me. In fact I did not exert my mind in the least as
my belief all along was that the whole affair of the telegrams was a blind
to put me off my guard for the real test. I felt, of course, that you had
something to do with the concoction of the messages, and this undoubtedly

February bth, 1899.

lady's reply.

J. H. Hyslop.

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

555

influenced me. It could hardly be otherwise. She was the only person, I
felt, that you knew I could have met in this way, and my answer seemed the
inevitable one. — Very sincerely, q g

(The original question will show the reader that I had not inserted the
word "abroad" in the message, and that I made no allusion to the
communicator's meeting the receiver in this country. This is an interpolation
of the receiver's, a very natural illusion in the case. The remainder of the
letter confirms my suspicion of the influences that suggested the answer and
the mistake of putting the question in the form it has. But I had neither
suspected nor prepared myself for the possibility of carrying on the
experiment to identify any one else. I merely saw that in all future
questions I had to be more indefinite. — J. H. H.)

In this report, instead of indicating who is sending the telegrams by
giving the initials as before, I shall simply adopt the abbreviation "Com."
for communicator and "Rec." for receiver.

I had managed to bring Mrs. H. down to the place for the purpose of
communicating with Miss B., and before coming told her that it might take
until twelve o'clock. I did not tell her that it was my intention that she
was to act as receiver. As soon as Miss B. had succeeded in assuring herself
of the person at the other end, I telegraphed to Mrs. H. that I wished her
to guess for some one. I then ordered the telegrams to begin.

It should be further said that I had called at Miss O.'s home on Saturday
last without Mrs. H.'s knowledge. Mrs. H. had understood that I was going
to the college. I had talked the telegrams over in order to make them as
indefinite as possible and in order to shape them in such a manner as to avoid
early guessing.— J. H. H.

1. Com. : Mrs. H., how are you ? You ought to know me when you
learn that I, at least, know where you live. I think I have met you several
times during the last few years. It was in connection with a friend of yours.

No guess made by receiver.

2. Com. : Do you know any one that you met at a reception in this
city who might be communicating with you in this way ?

Rec. : Is it a person who can be seen on Madison Avenue ?
Com. : No. (This answer was sent by my order, but it was a mistake
to have done so. It should have been oracular. — J. H. H.)

3. Com. : I remember that the first time I ever tasted German coffee
cake was at your house. Do you know who that was ? (Cf. Q. 10, p. 564.)

(Receiver made no guess here, but tells me after her return home that the
statement had no meaning for her. I explained that Miss O. told me that the
incident was a real one and that it took place at our house, Mrs. H. having
thought it nonsense to throw her off the track or confuse her, and not having
any memory of any one eating German coffee cake at our house. — J. H. H.)

GROUP A.— II.

New York, Jamutry 30th, 1899.
Communicator : Miss O. Receiver : Mrs. H.

556

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

4. Com. : Do you remember that either the intermezzo or the largo was
played at a reception on Seventy-fourth Street, and that you and I talked
about it ?

(My assistant at the other end of the line records that Mrs. H. said to
him : "I don't know any one that lives on Seventy-fourth Street," and then
telegraphed to ** Com." the following : 44 Was the reception on Seventy-
fourth Street a junior reception to seniors at the French School V I had
no reply sent to this question, but went on with the next telegram.

5. Com. : Do you remember that Mr. Hyslop described to me the pro-
cess of making wine and that he took me afterward to the cellar to show
it to me ? Guess again.

(My assistant records Mrs. H.'s remark as follows : 4 4 He has done that
for too many people for me to distinguish.")

6. Com. : You and your husband once took dinner at our house and
Mr. Hyslop talked with my uncle on some interesting questions connected
with his work at Columbia. It was in the spring.

Rec. : I think it is Miss Eleanor Osborne.
(I sent back the reply: 4 4 Guess again, and be certain about it." —
J. H. H.) (My assistant records Mrs. H.'s further remark : 44 I do not
remember the other things in connection with her.")

7. Com. : I met you first at a Barnard tea, and afterward at several
functions of this kind.

(My assistant records Mrs. H.'s remark : 44 1 think it must be she. This
is the answer to question four." This is correct, but I went on with the
next message. — J. H. H.)

8. Com. : I remember also an intimate acquaintance of yours who
attended Barnard, and with whom I used to study down there. We used
often to discuss the Civil War, she defending the Confederate side and I the
other. Could you guess me ?

Rec. : I'm sure it is Miss Osborne. (My assistant adds Mrs. H.'s
remark: 4 4 The person with whom she conversed on the war was Miss

(I here sent back word that the guess was correct, and said it was not
necessary to go any further with the experiment. But I had gone only half-
way through my intended questions, which gradually became more specific,
though the tenth was intended to throw Mrs. H. off the scent. — J. H. H.)

Communicator : Mr. McW. Receiver : Dr. V. I.

1. Com. : I have known you for about a year. Who am I ?

Rec. : Go ahead. (My assistant records Mr. V. I.'s remark to him as
follows : 44 Probably some man about the university." — J. H. H.)

2. I met you in the Geological Department.

(My assistant records remark : 44 That perhaps restricts it to some one in
the Geological Department." — J. H. H.)

J. H. H.)

Hall.")

GROUP A.— III.

New York, January 30th, 1899.

ill]

Appendix IV.

557

3. Com. : I met you in your own room — the museum.
(Receiver makes no guess.)

4. Com. : I saw you once at a concert.
Rec. Did I see you there ?

Com. : Possibly.

5. Com. : The concert was at Carnegie Hall.
Rec. : Either McW. or McD. [Nearly correct, as reader can see. —

Com. : Have to try again.
(My assistant records Mr. V. I.'s remark : "I don't think McD. saw
me." — J. H. H.) [This shows the judgment correct.— J. H. H.]

6. Com. Do you still wear that giddy necktie you had last fall ?

(This question was sent in order to create a diversion and to cause a
break in the chain. Mr. McW. told me that he did not know of any reason
for asking such a question, so far as his own knowledge went, and that it was
simply a wild question. After the experiment was over Dr. V. I. said that
the question had thrown him completely off the track, because he had
bought a red necktie last fall, and was wearing it then, and had thought of
a Mr. B., a freshman, who used to joke him about it, but that he, V. I.,
could not think him here. — J. H. H.)

7. Com. : Do you remember that when I met you in the museum you
showed me some rare fossils ? Who am I ?

Rec. : Dr. Savage.

8. Com. At the concert we looked at a score together.
Rec. : McW. [Correct.— J. H. H.]

Com. : Well, we shall see.

9. Com. : How are you getting along with the flute ?
Rec. : McW. without question.

(This was correct, and the guess had been so several times, and it seemed
unnecessary to do any bluffing, as it would only have taken up time and
ended in the same result. — J. H. H.)

Remabks. — Mr. McW. had met Dr. V. I. only comparatively recently
and had not been with him so very often, and was not an intimate acquaintance
of the gentleman. It is possible that this fact may have helped to run down
the right person in the guessing, but the main facts were vague enough for
08 to have expected more delay in the success, except perhaps for the possi-
bility always that the incidents or questions may have a much narrower signi-
ficance than even the interrogator might suppose. The reading of the score
together might not have been a frequent incident, as it turned out it
was not, in the experience of the receiver. It was a priori probable also

1. Com. : I have seen you about Columbia for several years. Who am I ?
Rec. : Can't guess.

2. Com. : During nearly all this time I have known you.
Rec. : No clue.

J. H. H.]

with McD.— J. H. H.

GROUP A. — IV.
Communicator : Mr. McW. Receiver : Mr. F.

558

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

3. Cora. : A short time ago I met you with another friend about your
height.

Bee. : Was this friend a student ? There is no clue.
Com. : You must guess.

4. Com. : We walked over to the elevated railroad together.
Rec. : It is McW.

(My assistant adds Mr. F.'s remark: * 4 This is the only one Hyslop
would know.")

5. Com. : Have you received your doctor's degree yet ?
Rec. : Ask another.

6. Com. : Is Prof. C. at Columbia to-day ?
Rec. : Is it Gentian ?

(This is the name of another student friend. When I read it and until
copying it down I thought that it was intended as a mere bluff or diversion
to indicate to us at the other end of the line that the sender did not propose
to be thrown off the track. But as I now recall the name of the student,
I see that it is intended as another guess.— J. H. H.)

7. Com. : We recently talked about recent educational developments at
Columbia.

Rec. : Is it Jones ?
Com. : Try again.

8. Com. : We spoke especially of the department of Psychology.

Rec. • Is it Judd ? (My assistant adds receiver's remark : " Walking
to the elevated is the only clue.")
Rec. : Once more.

9. Com. : I invited you to call at my office.

Rec. : Is it McW. (" Decided clue," said to assistant)

10. Com : Are you not studying after images ? What are they any way ?
(Assistant records receiver's remark : " Still think it McW.")

Rec. : Have you forgotten the numerous papers I had in C.'a
Seminar ?

11. Com. : Which one of C.'s Seminar's ?

Rec. : '95-'6. '96-7. Still think it McW.

12. Com. : I met Houston a few days ago on Broadway. He has a hear;
beard.

Rec. : McW. (To assistant : 44 Decided clue.")

13. Com : I saw you on college campus this morning.
Rec : McW.

(This was correct and assured, and there was no use in going anj
further with it. The main object was to see whether the receiver would
come back to his first correct guess. — J. H. H.)

GROUP A. — V.

New York, January 30M, 1899.
Communicator : Mr. McW. Receiver : Mr. F.
1. Com. : I have known you off and on several years. Who am I ?
Rec. : Dr. Hyslop.

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

559

2. Com. : I met you not long ago on a car.
Roc. : Where?

3. Com. : It was a trolley car.

Rec. : Was it in Newark or New York ?

4. Com. : It was in the evening.

(Receiver remarks to assistant : 41 No clue." ;

5. Com. : It was a Sunday evening.

(Receiver remarks to assistant : " Couldn't have been here. No clue.
Don't recall any such circumstance." )

6. Com. : I have heard that you teach French at Columbia University.
Is that so ?

Rec. : Did I see you on the car ?

7. Com. : Do you have advanced or introductory courses ?
Rec. : Go ahead.

8. Com. : You mentioned Newark. Do you live there ?
Rec. : Did I see you on the car ?

Com. : Yes.

9. Com. : When I met you on the car it was on a principal street.
Rec. : Go ahead.

10. Com. : I got on the car as you got off.

Rec. : It is McW. Did I step all over your feet ?
Com. : Try again.

Rec. : You took my cousin home from church that night and had just
left her house.

(This answer was so explicit and correct that the experiment was not
continued. — J. H. H.)

This experiment is a specially interesting one in the influence of precon-
ception, and has its lessons of caution, though in the end the preconception
is overcome and the identity of the right person discovered.

1. Com. : How long ago is it since you saw me at an alumni meeting '{
They told me that you were assisting in music.

2. Com. : I never knew you were musical.
(No reply.)

3. Com. : What on earth are these experiments for? They tell me
Hyslop is back of them.

Rec. : Ask him, not me.
(A little suspicion might have suggested that this question was a ruse, as
the person sending messages had to be acquainted more or less with both
the nature and the object of the experiments. — J. H. H.)

4. Com. : Did not I see you at the opera the other night ?
Rec. • You ought to know. Did I see you ?

GROUP A. — VI.

New York, January 30M, 1899.
Communicator : Dr. M. Receiver : Mr. McW.

(No reply.)

560

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

(Receiver remarks to me : 44 I suspect that it is Keppler.")

5. Com. : I don't know.

Rec. : What night were you at the opera ?

Com. : Last Wednesday.

Rec. : It is Keppler.
(It was a fact not known by the communicator that Mr. Keppler and
Mr. McW. had each seen the other at the opera without either knowing
this of the other at the time. — J. H. H.)

6. Com. : I have been looking at the library building. It is fine.
Rec. : Is it Keppler ? Am surer yet.

(The sender did not intend this question to suggest this person, but only
to lead up to something else, and it is interesting to see the receiver's reason
for guessing him. He remarked to me that he did so because K. likes opera
and is interested in photography, which he had applied to the library.
44 Everything so far sent belongs to him." A bystander also remarked the
same suggestiveness in all messages. — J. H. H.)

7. Com. : They might just as well have built the college up in Yonkera
if they expect us to get up here.

(No reply.)

8. Com. : I saw the library when building, but life is too short to get to
Harlem more than once a decade.

(No reply.) (Receiver remarked to me : 44 Makes me think of Keppler
more than ever. ")

9. Com. : Goodnow ought to have jumped on you. [This was a vague
reference to conduct of McW.'s in Prof. Goodnow's class some years before
while sitting near Mr. M.— J. H. H.]

Rec. : Why ?

10. Com. : They tell me you are in the old lunatic asylum. I suppose
you will be glad when it is replaced by a better building.

(No reply.)

11. Com. : 44 No, not the hangman's axe bears half the keenness of thy
sharp tongue."

(Receiver remarks to me : 4 4 This is a quotation from Shakespeare.
It is mere rambling on the part of Keppler." The fact was that in the
Columbian for 1892, the class book of wit and satire, this was the verse that
was supposed to characterise the receiver, Mr. McW. The verse was not
recognised at all.— J. H. H.) (Cf. p. 661).

12. Com. : There are lots of things I should like to talk over with you.
Rec. : Mention a few. (The statement was only a diversion. —

J. H. H.)

13. Com. : If you pricked that it would bleed. That was a good one,
wasn't it 1

Rec. : What would bleed ? (To me he remarked: 4 4 Goodness sake,
what's that?"— J. H. H.)

(This was a striking incident in the class some years ago, which was as
follows : The class was reading Heine, under Professor Boyesen, both Mr,
McW. and the sender being in the class together, and when a certain fine
passage was read, Professor Boyesen sprang to his feet and exclaimed,
4 4 If you would prick that it would bleed." Mr. McW. had come out of

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

561

the room after the lecture, and, alluding to the remark quoted, said,
44 Wasn't that fine?") (Of. p. 560.)

Com. : A passage from Heine.

Rec. : Why don't you own up, Keppler ?

14. Com. : What was that amusing experience you had teaching ?

Rec. : Please be more specific. (The question was intended to be a
diversion.)

15. Com : Sie sehen aim als ob ich chinesisch gesprochen hatte.
Rec. : Well, what is Chinese for Keppler ?

(This German sentence refers to an incident somewhat similar to that in
Question 13. Professor Boyesen had asked a man a question and received
for answer nothing but a blank stare. Professor Boyesen blurted out the
sentence that the communicator here quotes, and after the class Mr. McW.
spoke of it as if it was to be remembered. — J. H. H.) (Of. p. 560.)

16. Com. : Do you remember making any one laugh in college ?
Rec. : Yes.

(Receiver remarks to mo : 44 Anybody would guess that. It is certainly
nothing but Keppler fooling around." — J. H. H.)

(Receiver had made the practice of making the sender, who sat next him
in the class, laugh a great deal. — J. H. H.)

17. Com. : Who ?

Rec, : You, I suppose.

18. Com. : You told me about your visit at Cattell's.
Rec. : When did I tell you ?

(This question was a true incident of recent date, but rather general,
and was intended to bridge the chasm between earlier and later events. —
J. H. H.)

19. Com. : What results did you get in your experiments in attention ?
Rec : I never performed any except this one.

(The communicator had only two or three years ago been the subject of
some experiments on attention, or the influence of outside incidents upon
action intended to be under the control of attention. — J. H. H.)

20. Com. : Say, did we bother Cattell ?
Rec. : Do you mean to-day ?
Com. : Long ago.

(This question refers to an incident just after performing the experiment
alluded to in Question 19. Mr. M. and Mr. McW. went after their experi-
ments into the next room and carried on such a disturbance that Mr. McW.
expressed a fear that they would disturb the person named. — J. H. H.)
Rec. : Please tell me just when you refer to.
Com. : When experimenting in attention at 49th Street.
Rec. : Oh, yes, you mean with the telegraph key.
(Receiver remarked to me : 44 Still Keppler, as I think he experimented
with me."— J. H. H.)

21. Com. : I remember you spoke about the difference between a tone
▼hen held a short time and when held a longer time.

Rec. : Go ahead.

I (This statement refers to a conversation of later date than the previous
(tents, and seems to have had no suggestiveness. — J. H. H.)
Digitized byGb$>glC

562

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[PART

22. Com. : You seem to have forgotten some of Boyesen's best remarks.
Rec. : For instance V

(Receiver here remarked to me : "If Keppler did not help me with
those experiments, it is narrowed down to Franz. But Franz did not go to
the opera."— J. H. H.)

23. Com. : Questions 13 and 15.

Rec. : Yes, I remember, but say, Keppler, are you not getting tired ?

24. Com. : After Strong's lecture you met me at the entrance to the
library going upstairs to read Wundt's Studien.

Rec. : Had you attended the lecture in question ?
Com. : Yes.

26. Com. : I met Morgan of '92 the other day.

Rec. : Did he say, " Hello, Keppler, how are you?"
(The communicator tells me that he sat between Morgan and McW., the
receiver, in the class, and that Morgan was very intimate with McW.—
J. H. H.)

26. Com. : Morgan and you used to make me laugh.
Rec. : Were you in the class of '92 ?

(It was astonishing to the sender that this with 25 had not suggestive
influence, as ought to be apparent to any one. — J. H. H.)

27. Com. : Don't you ever take lunch here Tuesdays ?

Rec. : Yes, I shall gladly accompany you next Tuesday. (This ques-
tion was intended as a diversion.)

28. Com. : Didn't Terwilliger get the mathematical prize in the Freshman
year ?

Rec. : Yes, go ahead. (Receiver writes on paper that he suspects
Marvin.)

(The pertinence of this question will be seen by the receiver's further
remark to me : — "Keppler was not in college at this time. Marvin was,
and he sat beside me with Morgan on the other side." The communicator,
in explaining the question, says that Mr. Terwilliger and the receiver
were very intimate, the former having since died, so that the question
with the discrepancy of time and the suggestiveness of a few of the
later questions began to tell on the receiver, and to break up his pre-
conception.—J. H. H.)

29. Com. : Goodnow used to get mad at my laughing, you sinner.
Rec. : I never had a course with Goodnow, did you ?

(As a matter of fact, both students had a course in Sophomore History
with the Professor named, and it was in this class that the experience with
the laughing took place, which the communicator remembers so well, and
the receiver seems to have so completely forgotten. — J. H. H.)

30. Com. : Did Goodnow teach you history in the Sophomore year ?
Rec. : No, Dunning.

Com. : Didn't Goodnow one term and Dunning the other ?
Rec. : Possibly, but I don't remember.

31. Com. : Can't you let a man get some lunch ?
Rec. : Why don't you give me some definite clue ?

(The fact was that only a few days ago Mr. McW., the receiver, waa at
the window of his room on the college grounds, and said to the sender in

XLX]

Appendix IV.

563

regard to another man that he would be over at his room in a minute, and
told the sender to hurry up and get his lunch. — J. H. H.)

32. Com. : You and Morgan used to keep me laughing in Sophomore
History.

Rec. : Did you sit near us ?
(Compare this question of the receiver's with his remark to me after
receiving Question 28. A discarnate spirit would have no chance to identify
himself under such conditions. — J. H. H.)
Com. : Yes.

Rec. : In the next seat ?

33. Com. : You might have caught cold in the open window.
Rec. : I guess Marvin.

34. Coin. : Have they built a post-office in your town yet ?
Rec. : Something sensible !

35. Com. : I have a lecture bo-morrow morning at 11.30.
Rec. : With whom ?

(The statement was the reiteration of what the communicator had said
in the receiver's hearing two hours before as he left the room where we were
to go over to the other end of the line. It was, of course, *as a blind
that it was said, and was repeated here as a sort of ruse before the next
question. — J. H. H.)

36. Com. : I sat next to you in history.

Rec. : Is it Marvin? (Receiver remarks to me: "I feel rather sure
from some things." But just think of this question after what has already
been said in the case. — J. H. H.)

37. Com. : I was going down the steps to lunch when you appeared at the
open window and suggested my hurrying up.

Rec. : Marvin, sure.
(At last the preconception was broken and the identification assured.
But it was accomplished only by means of the most recent events, and by the
clearest incidents that the communicator could imagine. — J. H. H.)

L Com. : Do you remember having met a friend some, time ago ?
(No reply.)

2. Com. : Have you lately translated any English poems into French ?
Rec. : Is it Page ?

(The question implies a true incident, and one that the person named in
the answer most probably knew. — J. H. H.)

3. Com. : Do you know anybody living up town near Amsterdam

Rec. : Give us another.
(This question would imply Mr. Page as well as the communicator. —

GROUP A.— VII.

Communicator : Mr. J.

New York, January 31sf, 1899.
Receiver : Mr. B.

Avenue ?

J.H.H)

564

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

4. Com. : Have you ever called on President L. ?
(No reply.)

(The communicator and receiver had called on person named together.—
J. H. H.)

5. Com. : Do you remember some of our walks in the morning ?
Rec. : Go ahead with another.

(Question was a diversion.)

6. Com. : Do you take any lessons in French ?
(No reply.)

(The question again was a diversion, though it implied a true fact. With
a preconception it might have been suggestive. — J. H. H.)

7. Com. : I wear glasses.

Rec. : Everybody here wears glasses.
(Statement was pertinent, and so was the answer.)

8. Com. Have you ever had any illusions ?

Rec. : Is it J. ? (Full name given.) [Correct.— J. H. H.J
(After a lecture once which the sender was giving and which the receiver
attended, Mr. B., the receiver, said to the communicator who had influenced
him somewhat : " You have taken away my illusions and given me others."—
J. H. H.)

Com. : Try again.

(This was always used as a diversion, to throw the receiver off the
track and to thus make the result the effect of accumulative evidence,
—J. H. H.)

9. Com. : Whose poems did you recite ?
Rec. : When ?

Com. : A week ago.
Rec. : I am sure it is Page.
(The question implied an incident which the sender knew but did not
witness, though he had talked about it with the receiver, and the person
named had witnessed the recitation. — J. H. H.)
10. Com. : It looks like a coffin now.
Rec. : I don't understand.
Com. : You do understand.
JW. ! I do not.

(Tne plimae here sent to the receiver was one he used in the presence of
iUi communicator <mce after cleaning up his desk. His friends made a
but it should have recalled the communicator, as
intended — J. H. H.) (C/. Ques. 3, p. 555.)
11, Com. : Why did you not go to Fair River ?

Ki : There are many of these questions that suggest Professor Coha
{The answer ia pertinent, as the receiver had talked about this trip to the
person framed und Had been " jollied" by him about the coffin incident—
H. H.)

Com, : Have y I >u called lately on Professor Speranza's family ?

?o reply )

Du you remember walking down Amsterdam Avenue recently

1 U.J wit

with all the persons suggested.

Digitized by Google

XLL]

Appendix IV.

565

14. Com. : Who knows about your temptation to buy books ?

Rec. : That is J. surely.
(This was correct as before, and was an incident about which there could
be no mistake in the matter of identity. After the experiment was
completed the receiver remarked to my assistant at the other end of the
line : " Most of the questions were closely related to incidents in my
acquaintance with Mr. Page. I did not guess Mr. J. at first, as he was Dr.
Jones's (assistant at that end of the line) room mate, and because Dr. Jones
had asked me to take part in the experiment. I thought that he would not
be likely to select Mr. J." — J. H. H.)

GROUP A. — VIII.

New York, January 31st, 1899.
Communicator : Mr. McW. Receiver : Professor C.

1. Com. : I have known you for several years, meeting you now and again.
Rec. : Am thinking of Hyslop.

(This would apply to me as it would apply to almost everybody in the
University and many outside, so that there is no excuse for guessing me
except that fact, and perhaps the suspicion that I was connected with the
experiment. But this only shows that it was a mere guess and not an
inference from anything that the statement suggests. There was also the
habit of mind in C. that induced him to suppose that the party must be
about the University. This, again, points to mere guessing and not
scientific inference.— J. H. H.)

2. Com. : I once had a ride with you in a buggy.
Rec. : Hallock.

3. Com. : I once spoke with you when you were with James.

(My assistant at the other end wrote down "Hyslop" for the answer,
but it is crossed out and was not sent. This is an interesting incident
because it is true that I never spoke with the person named when the
receiver was present, though such a thing would be an a priori probability.
The temptation to give my name and then the correction shows that memory
does not recall any such fact connected with me. — J. H. H.)

4. Com. : Do you remember the meeting between us two and Baldwin ?
Rec. : Hyslop.

(No answer being sent to the previous message led me to think that this
answer was a good illustration of what I wanted to test by the experiment,
for twice in a merely incidental manner B. and I crossed each other's paths
in C.'s presence. But there was nothing in the question that would suggest
me any more than perhaps a hundred others. But the intended answer to
be sent to the previous message indicates what suggests the reply to this
one. Having my name in mind the consistency of this incident with it
would naturally prompt the reply on that ground and not on that of
inference. The reply is therefore liable to the objection that it is an
illusion in spite of its correctness. — J. H. II.)

5. Com. : Do you not remember telling me about Cope's high position
among biologists ?

566

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

Rec. : No. (This answer stands in the note of the assistant and
was not sent, but in its stead was sent the remark, ** Still thinking of
Hyslop." The answer " No " would have been correct in regard to myself,
but not correct in regard to Mr. McWhood, though it was a priori possible
that such a remark was made to me ; but unless the incident was explicitly
recalled, such a remark should not be interpret^! as either a memory of
anything or an inference. It is a mere guess and a worthless one at that.

6. Com. : I called at your house once at Garrison.
Rec. : Franz.

(This was a perfectly absurd guess, because this very man was standing
beside the receiver, and could not be the sender of the message according to
the whole bond fide purpose of the experiment. There was absolutely no
excuse for such a guess, except that the man mentioned had been at his
house, unless there was a misunderstanding on the receiver's part in regard
to the nature of the experiment.

Inquiry since writing the note above this line shows that there was just
this very misunderstanding, and hence the absurdity of the answer is not
admissible from the standpoint of the receiver, but only from the stand-
point of my assumption. — J. H. H.)

7. Cora. : When I called, it was a warm day in summer.
Rec. : Franz.

(This might consist with the message, but it was a wrong guess, and
shows the influence of preconception, as was noticeable in more than one of
this subject's answers. — J. H. H.)

8. Com. : Are you going to lecture at Wood's Holl this summer ?
Rec. : Franz.

(This might be relevant, but it is mere guessing, not inference.)

(This note has to be altered to suit the fact later ascertained about the
misunderstanding in regard to the rights of inference. Besides I have since
ascertained from Mr. Franz what Mr. McWhood thought was not true,
namely, that Mr. Franz had talked about this very thing.— -J. H. H )

9. Com. : Should you advise me to read Helmholtz or Stumpf ?
Rec. : Franz or McWhood.

(This was quite a relevant answer in so far as the second name is con-
cerned and if the first person had not been with the receiver it might have
been relevant to him, so far as I and the communicator knew at the time.
The question suggested authors whom these two students were to read, and
most especially Mr. McWhood, they being the chief authors used on the
subject of sound, and Mr. McWhood having devoted himself to that of
sound.— J. H. H.)

10. Com. : Wrill that article of mine in the Psychological Review be
reprinted ?

Rec. : Franz.

(This question was intended by Mr. McW. to be misleading, as he had
never printed an " article " but only a review in this periodical, and supposing
that Mr. Franz would not be guessed, although he had written an article
for the Review, Mr. McW. thought to divert the clue to some one else than
himself, and only got the answer which was perfectly relevant. —J. H. H.)

-^J. H. H.)

XLL]

Appendix IV.

567

11. Com. : Will you still edit Science next year ?
Rec. : Franz.

(This again was a vague question intended to keep the receiver off the
track awhile. The answer was recognised as relevant by the sender, but
Mr. Franz told me afterward that he saw no reason for such an answer. Mr.
Franz, however, has had much to do with the management of Science.—

12. Com. : At Garrison we played tennis and you beat me.
Rec. : Witmer or McWhood.

(This was pertinent, though we who were sending the messages had no
knowledge of its pertinence to the first person mentioned. But this mention
of a person outside the limits of the university illustrates and confirms the
principle on which the receiver assumed that the guessing was to be done.
There was absolutely no reason to suppose that Witmer was sending the
message. — J. H. H.)

13. Com. : I stayed at Garrison a week or two.
Rec. : McWhood, not sure.

14. Com. : While at Garrison I stayed at the hotel and rode out to your
house on a bicycle.

Rec. : McWhood.

(This question was intended to close the experiment by a specific incident
about which there could be no doubt, and the answer was correct as it had
been in several other cases. — J. H. H.)

(Note. — There is nothing in this experiment to illustrate as clearly as I
should like the correctness of spontaneous inference and verification of per-
sonal identity by the arbitrary selection of incidents common to two lives.
The assumption of the receiver, which is more fully explained in the
account of the next experiment, shows that, although the identification was
correct in the several instances, it did not represent a process of cumula-
tive facts in reference to one person with irrelevancies which might be
calculated to disturb the judgment at times. The assumption that any
relevant person could be guessed and recognised spoils this case also. But it
still illustrates preconception, though not to the same extent as in the
next experiment. — J. H. H.)

GROUP A. — IX.

New York, February 2nd, 1899.
Communicator : Professor Hyslop. Receiver : Professor C.

This experiment turned out absolutely useless for the purpose of the
general series. The wrong answer to the first question made it impossible,
with the short time of half-an-hour at our disposal, to run the receiver off
the track suggested by my name, the reason for which appears in the answer
of the same person in the experiment of January 31st.

Before beginning the sending of messages the receiver sent me word
that he had only twenty-five minutes at his disposal, while in other cases
we had a full hour. The first question was designed to suggest any one of a

J. H. H.)

568

J. H. Hyslop, Fh.D.

[part

group, a small group, of persons about the university and others who may
have been at Johns Hopkins University when Professor C. was there. The
answer given was absurd, as I was not at this institution until long after the
receiver. But in mentioning my name the receiver established the point de
rephre about which some equivocal facts were to turn, and hence their
identification with me is liable to the objection of an illusion of identity,
though no such illusion is involved. Several later questions were in-
tended to suggest another person in a neighbouring city who was more
closely associated with the receiver at the time denoted by the queries than
myself. But the false suggestion at first of my name gave an associative
clue to some questions that might not have recalled me at all. Hence the
success has no value at all in the case. It could only count as a possible
illustration of the tendency to accept a hypothesis for a fact that consists
with it, but which might not of itself suggest it. This is borne out by the
tendency to throw off all irrelevant matter in the case as not calculated to
disturb the conviction already formed.

Another fact has some importance in the case. The experimental work
of the receiver has been conducted upon the fact that subjects and agents
were connected with this university, and his own habits of thought lay at
the basis of his first induction, and knowing that I was engaged in the general
experiment there was a natural limitation to the number to be guessed from.
The same absurd guess was made on the first message on January 31st,
as indicated by its language, and more distinctly by his personal statement
afterward, when he said that he did not intend it as a guess, because he
•» recognised that the incident did not suggest the name directly. His idea was

that being conscious that I was back of the experiment, I had something to
do with the message. This is relevant as a guess, but not as a suggestion,
and in any case it indicates enough already in consciousness to make the
result useless for the problem before us, though the manner of answering
and discarding the incidents not relevant to the person suggested at first
illustrates more natural control of the clue than was true of many others
in the experiments. The experiment, however, is recorded here as it
occurred.

1. Com. : Do you remember me while you were at Johns Hopkins ?
Rec. : Hyslop.

(There was no reason, in fact, to suspect this as mine, as I had not been
there until long after him. I am not even certain whether any one at this
university was there at the time. Hence there is only the name of Johns
Hopkins and the fact that I had been there to give any pertinence even to
a guess, and that only as a person who was connected with the message.
But it spoiled the whole result. It would have applied better to another
colleague. — J. H. H.)

2. Com. : Do you remember George Morris ?
Rec. : Hyslop.

(This again was a perfectly absurd answer. It was relevant only as
implying that I bad sent the message, not as a memory of me in connec-
tion with George Morris, who bad lectured at Johns Hopkins at least near
the time that Professor C. was there. But I never knew him, and was not
there until seven or eight years after that date. But again the fixity of the

XLl.]

Appendix IV.

569

receiver's mind upon my name was such that equivocal incidents were not
calculated to throw it off, and the answer to the next question was half sug-
gested by a preconception. — J. H. H.)

3. Cora. : You and 1 were at a meeting with T. and S. H. in Phila-
delphia.

Rec. : I say Hyslop, not sure.
(This answer was pertinent and true. But the two men mentioned have
never been at any similar meeting since then, and the receiver had only
seen me twice before, and we had not talked together at this meeting.
This fact is probably the source of the receiver's doubt in the case. The
test of his memory for small incidents independently of these experiments
convinces me that it would be too problematic to say that the suggestion
had only a possible consistency with the original hypothesis. But this
question and several others were designed to lead up to the suggestion of
another person, as will appear. But I had to omit two of the intended
incidents on account of the poiiU de repkre already in mind, and consistent
with, though not readily suggestible by them.— J. H. H.)

4. Com. : Who is Dixon Morton 1

(This name is the pseudonym of an acquaintance of the receiver's, and
more particularly of the man whom I wished to suggest, and who was closely
associated with the receiver both as a student and teacher afterwards. )
Rec. : Hyslop.

(This was a perfectly absurd answer to me, except on the supposition
that the receiver had read Part XXXIV. of the Proceedings 1 and, knowing
that I was interested in this subject, inferred that I had sent the message.
But this makes the guess absurd in the light of the experiment and its
object. The receiver afterward told me that the name had no meaning to
him, and that he neither understood it nor sent any reply to it, though I
talked with him not more than ten minutes after the experiment. But the
fact is that the telegram received from his end of the line stands in the
original record in the handwriting of the telegrapher. The probability is that
this judgment about it by the receiver is confused with the later reference
to the same name where my repetition of it was calculated to throw him off
the track. But the persistency of my name in connection with absolutely
irrelevant matter appeared to be a case of fixed or persistent ideas that made
it impossible to succeed in any reasonable diversions from them. I saw that
if this would not break the dominant idea, nothing would do it. But I tried
again with an equivocal incident, and the answer remained the same. —
J. H. H.)

5. Com. : Do you remember any ride to B. M. (name of place) and our
talk on your subject ?

(We had had the talk, but the ride might have been a possible one with
the person in P. whom I wished to suggest).

Rec. : No. (This was pertinent to me, and possibly to the person I
wished to suggest.— J. H. H.)

6. Com. : Do you remember my squabble with President R. ?
Rec. : Think it is Hyslop.

1 See Proceedings S.P.R., Part XXXIV., pp. 12-22, and 24.

Digitized by Google

570

J. H. Hyslop, Pk.D.

[part

(This is pertinent, but the present tense suggests, especially in the light
of the manner of previous guessing, that it is due, not to memory but
perhaps to mere conjecture. But afterwards the receiver told me personally
that he did not remember any squabble of mine with the gentleman, though
he and the man I wished to suggest had had such a difficulty, and he thought
it possible that I had had the same experience. It was after all perfectly
pointless guessing, so correct in fact that I could only suppose a marvellous
memory and give up the task. But I tried again. — J. H. H.)

7. Com. : I was in the Associated Press.
Rec. : No suggestion.

(Correct, but is entitled to the same answer even from the standpoint of
the receiver's memory as questions that had no pertinence at all. — J. H. H.)

8. Com. : I called at your house and talked over psychology.
Rec. : Hyslop.

(This is correct. But there was nothing in the previous answers to
suggest that it was due to memory, and I found that the particular visit that
I had in mind was actually remembered, though it was quite an obscure
incident, and occurring at a time when I should be little remembered by
any one. I shaped the question so that it might as easily apply to the
receiver's present residence, though it would not be true in that connection,
and had my name not already been in the receiver's mind, the statement
would not have suggested me, because I had not been able to keep a promise
to visit him at his present home. — J. H. H.)

9. Com. : You and I were in P., and both know Dixon Morton.
Rec. : Is it D. M. ?

(The guess here was so correct that it confirmed my impression and
inference from the mention of my name in connection with this person's
pseudonym mentioned above. I felt sure that the receiver had read the
Proceedings referred to above. But I found, on conversation with him a
few minutes afterward, that he had guessed whom I had in mind only from
the sound of the name ! ! and that he did not know who Dixon Morton was.
But, imagining that my inference was correct, I resolved to close the experi-
ment, and telegraphed the following. — J. H. H.) (Cf. pp. 640, 661.)

Com. : Yes.

Rec. : Hyslop.

(This, again, seemed pertinent, and I sent the next telegram to settle
the identity and not to test the receiver. I had intended it as a conclusive
test if some of the others failed, but I threw it in as a finish to the
experiment. But the later conversation, which showed that the receiver
had guessed D. M. only from a certain resemblance between the names —
rather remote in most respects— and hence indicated both that my inference
was incorrect and that the guessing of my name in connection with anything
in the message sent him, except the allusion to acquaintance, was essentially
absurd, and without foundation in memory or suggestion. — J. H. H.)
10. Com. : The baby said nothing.

Rec.: Hyslop. (My assistant adds his remark : 14 Surely.")

(This was the only perfectly pertinent answer in the whole series, though
I could not have said so until after my personal talk with the receiver. The
incident was one that he could not help referring to me, and the " surely "

xu.]

Appendix IV.

571

only shows that the judgments were mere guesses and not inductive infer-
ences from remembered incidents. The incident, which it is not necessary
to detail, would suggest me to any man who had told the story with
reference to me at an alumni dinner, and the answer is an unquestionable
identification of me, though it adds dubiousness to the pertinence of the
others in spite of their objective correctness. — J. H. H.)

Note 1. — In regard to the receiver's impression, told me ten minutes
after the experiment, that Question 4 had no meaning, and that he had not
sent any reply to it, I have mentioned the record in the telegram sent me.
The record kept by my assistant at the other end also shows that the
receiver's answer was taken and sent. — J. H. H.

Note 2.~ I had surmised from the answers in this experiment and also
the first one with the same receiver, that he was not correctly informed of
the nature of it, but that he imagined that he had simply to guess the
relevancy of an incident to some person whom it suggested. On inquiry
this morning (February 3rd) of the mau who was with the receiver at the
opposite end of the line, and who was new as an assistant for the purpose of
concealing more effectually the probable or possible person communicating,
I found that he had not made the duty of the receiver perfectly clear. He
reports to me that he had told the receiver the secret nature of certain
features of the experiment — that it was one in recognition, and that he
would receive messages from some one — but that perhaps he did not make it
clear whether the sender was supposed to be necessarily at the other end or
not. Afterward Professor C, during the experiment and soon after it had
started, inquired whether it could be a person who was there or not. Even
this seems not to have evoked any answer sufficiently clear to make the
guesses or inferences what they ought to have been and were intended to be
on my part. This then fully explains the nature of the answers and the
illusion under which I acted from the answers sent.

Nevertheless, though the experiment does not illustrate what I wished
to show, it has an interest of another kind. It shows very clearly on the
side of the receiver just what influence preconception will have upon the
judgment and how many identifications in the Piper case must run this
gauntlet before they are granted any evidential value. On the other hand,
the similar illusion under which I had to act in the interpretation of the
result illustrates the cross purposes under which communications between two
personalities must be conducted when there are either extreme difficulties in
the way of its being effected at all, or similar difficulties in the way of a
ready understanding. There is in this experiment some resemblance to the
confusion in the Piper phenomena where the communications, at least so-
called, show similar misunderstanding, though there we often have the time
and opportunity to correct them. Here I could not do so, as this would
lead to my identity in a way contrary to the object of the experiment.
Further it illustrates well how that confusion may arise in a sitting and
perhaps not be corrected because of the failure to have a second one, and
the consequence is that the case is given up as useless. But when we know the
cause of failure, if that is possible, we might have reason to see that the
facts are at least not opposed to the natural supposition that it is supernormal.
The mistakes and illusions in the experiment here described are perfectly

572

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

natural to both parties in the case and can be definitely determined and
proved, and enable u» to say whether the results are good for anything or
not. This is not always so easy, if possible at all, in the Piper instance, but
the difficulties are of the type here indicated and show that we cannot
form a negative judgment on the ground of them.

In connection with the presence of preconception and its influence on
the receiver and perhaps the communicator as well, there is a more important
resemblance to the Piper case. Here I was endeavouring to suggest another
person than myself and one more intimately associated with the receiver at
the time of the incidents and the place in which they occurred than
myself. Now if we suppose that I was that person and trying to make
myself known to the receiver in the broken way that the Piper incidents
exhibit, it would appear that I utterly failed in this, and only suggested another
person altogether. On the other hand, the receiver, starting out with a false
idea of the limitations under which the inferences were to be made, first
supposes this other person (myself) and with this preconception — created as
much by a knowledge of my connection with the experiment as by the
assumed privilege of supposing any one besides the communicator as the
sender of messages — it was natural to stick to the personality of the one first
thought of, if the incidents mentioned later were consistent with it, and to
discard as irrelevant all matter not consistent with it. Hence the only reason
that any correctness can be attached to the judgments of the receiver, in
the first incidents, is the fact that I had deliberately chosen cases of
an equivocal character, which, some of theoi at least, were relevant to both
myself and the person I had in mind. The misunderstanding in regard to
the duty of the receiver, the assumption as to possible persons within the
limits of the guessing, and the preconception established by the first supposi-
tion prevented any suggestibility being found in the incidents intended to
suggest the identity of another person altogether. This illustrates
many incidents in the Piper phenomena, and we have to be as careful about
rejecting it on account of these failures as in accepting it on the ground
of its successes

GROUP A.—X.

New York, February Id, 1899.
Communicator : Professor Hyslop. Receiver : Miss S.

1. Com. : I knew you in Barnard.
(No reply.)

2. Com. : I saw you at a reception on 74th Street.
(No reply.)

3. Com. : Do you remember a man in Ethics who tried to corner the
teacher on the antecedent probability of miracles ?

(No reply.) (Remark to assistant : " Don't remember." )
(There was only one other lady in the class to which I refer, and which
was conducted by myself. The question refers to a rather sharp a priori
reasoner, and the interest with which the members of the class and especially
Miss S. watched me in my reply to the man's questions.— J. H. H.)

xll]

Appendix IV.

573

4. Com. : Do you know Miss E. ? (Name given in full in message.)
(No reply.) (Remark to assistant : "Yes.")

5. Com. : What other lady was in the class mentioned in Question 3 ?
(No reply.) (Remark to assistant : " Still don't remember. ")

6. Com. : Antithesis.
(No reply.)

(I here mention an obscure class of inferences discussed in my Logic and
with which the lady was acquainted. But I did not expect her at this
stage of the game to guess anything. The word was intended to be only
the first of a number in connection with my work with this lady and designed
to suggest me as communicator. They will be mentioned as the record pro-
ceeds.— J. H. H.)

7. Com. : I remember you sometimes sat near a gentleman acquaintance
in the class.

(No reply.) (Remark to assistant : " It is not true." )
(This question is vague, and might be taken to refer to the class in
Barnard, in which case the remark would not be true. But I had in mind
another class in Columbia in which the lady was doing post-graduate work.
It was intended in a vague way to suggest that the class was not at Barnard,
where only ladies attend. The answer, or rather remark, to the assistant
shows no tendency to break up a preconception. — J. H. H.)

8. Com. : What were the circles for in the class in Logic ?
Rec. : I've passed in Logic.

9. Com. : Two and two make four.
(No reply. )

(This statement was intended to suggest, by an illustration in my post-
graduate class used to discuss certain problems in connection with the
theory of Intuitionism, that I might be the communicator. But it had no
effect.— J. H. H.)

10. Com. : Do you remember any walks in Central Park and what we
talked about ?

(A wild question intended merely as a diversion and not representing any
true incident between me and the receiver. — J. H. H.)
Rec. : I took many walks there.
Com. : Mention two or three.
Rec. : Co ahead.

11. Com. : Do you know Felix Adler ?
Rec. : Yes.

(I had to put this question cautiously, as I did not know whether the lady
had had any other knowledge of him than that in reference to an incident
that had occurred between herself and myself. The next question then was
shaped to connect with this, which it was safe to put in spite of the " Yes "
that I got in the reply.— J. H. H.)

12. Com. : I remember you were interested once in the free-will
controversy.

Rec. : I think you are a class-mate.

13. Com. : Do you remember where you stood at the graduation exercises
in Carnegie Hall ?

574

J. H. Hyslop, PhD.

[part

Rec. : To right side of the steps of the platform. Did I dance with
you at the reception ?

Com. : I think not.

Rec. : Do I know you socially ?

Com. : That depends on what you mean by social.
(This answer sent back by myself was the question which I always ask
a student when I wish to know what a question seeks to know. It is a
demand for definition, and I thought it would suggest my habits at least
indefinitely. But it suggested nothing. — J. H. H.)

14. Com. : What was Miss S 's advice on that matter of some

importance to you ?

(This question pertained to an important matter between me and the
receiver and the lady mentioned in the message, and, though vague, was one
intended to lead up to more definite ones. — J. H. H.)

Rec. : Have you ever called on me ?

Com. : You find out.

15. Com. : An immediate process.
(No reply.)

(This phrase was one by which I constantly expressed my position in
the Theory of Knowledge which Miss S. attended during different years
in my advanced class, and only a short time before with much frequency.
—J. H. H.)

16. Com. : Was it James* or Baldwin's Psychology we had ?
Rec. : You are a girl.

17. Com. : Do you remember any ghost stories that were told in the class ?
Rec. : Plenty.

Com. : Mention one, and if I can I shall say more.

Rec. : Can't remember any in particular, nor can you.

Com. : Do you recall the one with the scar that was on the face of the
ghost ? Man lived in Boston, but was out West when he saw his sister.

Rec. : Don't recall ; be more definite.
(This question was put because there has been much fun outside the
classes about my ghost stories in discussing psychical research. The question
is equivocal, but the mention of a specific one ought to have created a
suspicion. — J. H. H.)

18. Com. : Do you ever read the InttnuUioiud Journal of Ethic* I
Rec. : Seldom.

(This question, coming after the previous one, was intended to suggest
myself, because I had been instrumental in having the lady offer a paper to
that jiiururtl for publication. It was sent to Professor Adler. The query is
*pie, ami connected with questions 11, 12 and 14. — J. H. H.)
U>. Ooffili ; Conversion and Fallacies. You must pass Logic again.
Hack : Go ahead.

[The object of this question is explained in the note to question 6.—

H. H.)

20. r. on. : What work in experimental psychology did you do ?

Rec. : It would take too long to tell.
(Tlik question pertains to the same matter as 14 and later incidents and

questions. -J. H. H.)

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

575

21. Com. : C , S , Mi88 S , B . Important for you.

Rec. : Carpenter.

Com. : Think you are on the right track.
(I started to telegraph that this was wrong on purpose to make the
question more definite, as I saw that suggestions did not appear to make any
impression. But it all at once occurred to me that the name mentioned in the
reply to mine was probably correct in connection with the events that I
wished to suggest by connecting so many names together in my message, as
I vaguely recalled then, and now distinctly, his connection with the affair.
But I sent the answer above both as an intimation that the sender was not
"Carpenter," while I suggested in this dubious way the probably proper
tendency of her mind. But I got the following reply. — J. H. H.)

Rec. : I am not on any track.

22. Com. : I saw you as you got off a car recently. Intuition.
Rec. : Did I see you ?

Com : Possibly.

(This statement was to remind the receiver of a fact that had occurred a
few days before when she sat on a seat in front of me in a street car, and I
did not look up to see her until she started to leave the car, and then it
was too late to catch her eye. The word " Intuition " was especially apt
in this connection to suggest me, at least as I thought, because I used it
so much in my classes for the three years during her attendance on my
class. — J. H. H.)

23. Com. : What did you come here for to-day ?
Rec. : That's what I'm trying to find out.

(The question was intended to be merely diversionary as a transition to
the next.— J. H. H.)

24. Com. : Felix Adler, International Journal of Ethics, B , Miss

S . What do these names mean together ?

Rec. : A great many people know what that means.
Com. : Do you remember the title to your thesis ? I am not certain
about it.

Rec. : Stop talking about that matter.
(I had put this last question as one that I thought absolutely certain
to put the receiver in mind of me, especially as her answer to 23 showed
that she was on the right track. But it failed. — J. H. H.)

25. Com. : Transcendental unity of apperception.
Rec. : In B 's class.

Com. : No.

(This phrase was one that she would frequently hear in B 's class,

and that some of her class-mates would know well enough, but it was a
common one with me when discussing Kant, and recently, in my course in
the Theory of Knowledge, I had criticised the doctrine of Kant, and pre-
sented over and over again my own position in terms of what was expressed
in the word "intuition' in 22, and the statement of 15. Hence, when I
sent the answer *' no " to her question, she ought to have nailed me at
once. — J. H. H.)

26. Com. : Do you remember your trouble with S— ?
Rec. : Yes ; stop that. That means nothing.

576

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[PABT

27. Com. : Hamilton and Reid.
Rec. : Dr. Hyslop's favourites.

(Here I thought I could soon make myself understood, and put the
next statement to effect it, as it was a phrase that I had used a few days
before a great many times in her presence when discussing certain questions
in the problem of knowledge. — J. H. EL)

28. Com. : Put everything together and draw a 44 progressive inductive
inference."

Rec. : Don't know. I have no idea.

29. Coin. : Reasoning is a vehicle for the transmission of certitude.
Rec. : Messages like that give me no clue at all.

(This statement of mine was one that I have very often used in the
receiver's presence when showing in the problem of knowledge that the
syllogism merely transmits, but does not originate certitude in regard to its
contents. I had frequently used it when she was present only a short time
before at several lectures.— J. H. H.)

30. Com. : I do not take much stock in "ratiocination."
Rec. : Then you are not Dr. Hyslop.

(This was, of course, the wrong answer, though the term 44 ratiocination "
and its connection had been recognised and placed rightly, but my doctrine
was absolutely reversed by her, my statement having embodied what I
taught very clearly when showing that the fundamental processes of know-
ledge were not mediate or apperceptive. Thus it is clear that the clue
completely failed. — J. H. H.)

31. Com. : You are not good at telepathy.
Rec. : You are not good at suggestion.

(I intended this statement to nail me, as Miss S. knew that I was
interested in this problem, and I hoped with my name in her mind from the
previous question that she would reverse her judgment. But I failed again,
and as the time was up, I made no further attempts to secure identifica-
tion.—J. H. H.)

GROUP A.— XI.

New York, Febrnaiy 1st, 1899.
Communicator : Professor K. Receiver : Professor H.

1. Com. : Do you know Farnham ?
Rec. : Professor Sloane.

(Pertinent answer, but wrong. The question represented a mutual
acquaintance, though one that the receiver would not associate closely with
the sender. — J. H. H.)

2. Com. : Is it true that he is married ?
Rec. : The same.

(The question was intended as a diversion because the first guess was too
near the sender to go hastily, and besides the sender knew that this Mr. F.
was not married. — J. H. H.)

3. Com. : Do you remember that fish story you told me in the presence
of Darling?

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

577

Rec. : Possibly the same. (To assistant : " A staggerer.")
(The question was pertinent to myself, and as I was known by the
receiver to be conducting the experiment it would act as a diversion, and we
at the sender's end of the line knew that the receiver had probably told the
story to many persons, and would not easily remember my presence with
him and Mr. Darling when he once told it. — J. H. IL)

4. Com. : I suppose being a good Episcopalian helped me to my chair
in physics.

Rec. : No clue. All adrift.
(This referred to an intimate friend of the receiver who was connected
with an event to come later, and it was here put as vaguely as possible so
that it might not tell too much.— J. H. H.)

5. Com. : Do you recall that disturbance in Wurzburg, when some one
burst out of the passage way ?

Rec. : Rather suggests Professor R. of T. Question 4 suggests the

same.

(The answer to the question was correct, though this person was not
the sender of the message. — J. H. H.) (Cf. Note, p. 579.)

6. Com. : Ole Cloes.
Rec. : Still think it R.

(This phrase was one with which the receiver and the sender among
others, and R. in particular, had had much fun, as it alluded to an
experience in Yellowstone Park. But the sender of the message was not
with the receiver when the incident occurred. — J. H. H.)

7. Com : Did I call on you with Farnham ?
(No reply.)

8. Com. : Whom did you meet at Professor VV 's lecture at the

American Museum ?

(No reply.)

9. Com. : Zwintscher.

Rec. : Looks like Hyslop himself, but some of the others don't.
(Question 2 might have suggested me, but as it did not, I threw in this
German name alone to see if it would recall the mustcale at my house a year
ago, which Professor H. had attended. I wanted both to see the effect
of a specific suggestion such as this name was calculated to bring out and to
indicate in the vaguest way possible the circle of acquaintances within which
the questions and incidents were placed. — J. H. H.)

10. Com. : Geyser Bill.

Rec. : I think that's Professor K. now.
(This was the name by which the sender, among others, called the
receiver after his trip in the Yellowstone Park. The recognition was thus
pertinent, but not yet conclusive. — J. H. H.)

11. Com. : Illch — he's dead, too.
Rec. : That's K.

(The statement here was intended to be a diversion, and represented the
name of a classmate of H. whom K. knew nothing about, but had picked
out of the catalogue for the purpose of diversion. We see in the answc
the effect of preconception. — J. H. H.)

578

J. E. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PART

12. Com. : That was fine was er gemacht hat— don't you forget it.
Rec. : That's K.

Com. : Try again.

13. Com. : Do you know Fisher Ames ? That was a good entertainment
the other night.

Rec. : May be K. yet.
(The question was one of my own to serve as a diversion in the direction
of the receiver '8 wife, whose maiden name was thus indirectly suggested,
and it would still be consistent with the knowledge of the sender. This
accounts for the nature of tho reply. Besides, he and his wife had been at
a recent entertainment. — J. H. H.)

Com. : But our fish were fresh.

(No reply. Assistant's note : " The same.")
(The phrase involved a diversion away from both the receiver's wife and
Professor K., and was intended to suggest another professor, who had in
the presence of the receiver used this expression as a very apt repartee to
some guying. No reply coming, we sent the next very pertinent question.

14. Com. : Do you remember the ice and mince pie with your wheel ?
Rec. : K. still.

(Correct in so far as the receiver knew that K. was familiar with the
circumstance, but it was not a personal experience of K. in connection with
H. It occurred in the summer when they were far apart, and ought to have
suggested the receiver's wife. — J. H. H.)

15. Com. : Wireless telegraphy.
Rec. : No clue.

(The receiver and myself had talked about this subject a few evenings
before, and I intended to both turn hiin aside from the sender and to see if
his memory would identify me with the incident. It did not, and I put the
next question to test him again about the same incident, because we had
talked about this subject in the same connection as the previous message
suggests. The two topics were associated. But both failed to disturb the
preconception formed about K. — J. H. H.)

16. Com. : Telepathy.
Rec. : The same party.

17. Com. : Sandwiches and something to drink.
Rec. : 15 and 16 give no clue.

18. Coin. . Quid nunc.

Rec. : That's K. pretty sure.

(K. and H. belonged to a club by this name.)

19. Com. : Where did you see me last ?
Rec. : It's K. yet.

20. Com. : Wine.

Rec. : That's Hyslop again.
(This answer was correct and refers to the same occasion as Question 17,
by which and this one I hoped to divert the receiver to his wife, who knew
all the facts mentioned and alluded to by K., as she was present and K. was
not on the occasion referred to. —J. H. H.)

J. H. H.)

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

579

21. Com. : Hier darf ich nicht bleiben, weil mein Name also Kunz ist.
Rec. : Give it up on that.

(This was intended to make sure the recognition, as K. thought H. would
have no doubt about his identity from the phrase, whioh was one he ought
be familiar with. While we were wondering what to send next, the second
message came as follows.— J. H. H.) (Cf. Q. 10, p. 664, and Q. 3, p. 555.)
Rec. : It's K. I think.

22. Com. : I did not have any of those sandwiches and wine.
Rec. : Well, that's K.

23. Com. : We were at the boat races in 1897, and met after they were
over.

Rec. : Tes, that's K.
(The last statement was sent in order to secure the identity of the
sender, as it was not necessary to continue the experiment further. The
answer was correct.— J. H. H.)

group a.— xn.

New York, January 31**, 1899.
Communicator : Mr. McW. Receiver : Dr. F,

1. Com. : Is it not Dr. F., of Columbia University ?
Rec. : Yes.

2. Com. : I met you first several years ago.
Rec. : Did I meet you in New York City ?
Com. : Yes.

3. Com. : I heard you talking of some experiment you had performed.
Rec. : Did I meet you in Columbia ?

4. Com. : Did you graduate from Princeton in 1890 ?
Rec. : No, in '88.

5. Com. : Do you still get your brains from the P. and S. ?

Rec. : Did you hear me describing the experiment in a lecture ?
Com. : Yes.

Rec, : Were you one of my students ?
Com. : Guess again.

6. Com. : Do you still teach Psychology, or have you adopted a new line
of work?

Rec. : Have we seen each other constantly since we first met ?
Com. : No.

7. Com. : Don't you remember when we dined together about two
years ago ?

Rec. : Did you dine with me, or did I dine with you ?
Com. : I dined with you.
Rec. : Is your name McW. ?
Com. : Try again.

Rec. : Was the lecture you heard me give a public or a college
lecture?

Com. : I heard you give several.

Digitized by

580

J. H. Hylsop, Ph.D.

[part

8. Com. : Are you going with Lumholtz to Mexico on his next tour ?
Rec. : Are you connected with the college now ?

Com. : You must find out.

9. Com. : I have read your article in the Psychological Review.
Rec. : Did you dine with me at my club ?

Com. : No.

10. Com. : Did you see me at the last Thanksgiving football match ?
(Question intended as a diversion.)

Rec. : Did we dine alone or were there any others with us ?
Com. : Others.

11. Com. : Do you remember when we cut up those pigeons ?
Rec. : Is your name Franz ?

Com. : Try again.

12. Com. : Don't you remember that we performed experiments together?
Rec. : Did we know each other well ?

Com. : It is a question of opinion.

13. Com. : When I dined with you my sister had scarlet fever.
Rec. : I am pretty sure your name is McW.

14. Com. : You afterward published the results of the experiments I
mentioned.

Rec. : Your name is McW.
(This was correct, and as the assurance was satisfactory there was no
further need for diversion. — J. H. H.)

1. Com. : I believe this is Mr. M., of Columbia. Are you a student or
an instructor ?

Rec. : Go ahead.

(Receiver remarks to me : " That rules me out. He does not know me
evidently." The receiver thus evidently thought he had to deal with some
one he did not know, and so wisely sent the reply mentioned. — J. H. H.)

2. Com. : In what department are you working and where is your

Rec. : Political science. (Question a diversion.)

3. Com. : You must have a fine view from your windows.
Rec. : True, Dr. Marvin knows that.

(The sender says in regard to this statement : 44 1 have discussed the
view from Mr. M.'s window a number of times." But the person mentioned
in the reply was not the sender. — J. H. H.)

4. Com. : Attendez encore ! Parlez-vous francais ?
Rec. : Suggests nothing.

(The statement was made in French because the receiver met Mr. J., who
is a teacher in that language, at the sender's rooms. — J. H. H.)

GROUP A. — XIII.

New York, February 1st, 1899.
Communicator : Dr. J. Receiver : Mr. M.

office?

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

581

5. Com. : Do you remember having gone down town with me on the
Elevated about a year ago ?

Rec. : No.

(Receiver remarks to me : "But that puts him in a certain class of
persons." The sender afterward tells me that the incident did not occur as
a fact, and that the question was put partly as a diversion and partly to find
how the receiver would guess.— J. H. H.)

6. Com. : Did you hear Professor Giddings lecture before the Political
Science Association on Expansion ? It was a good lecture. Do you think
he will print it ?

(No reply.) (Receiver remarks to me : "That suggests some one who
did not read the Political Science Quarterly. For the article has already
been published. " The sender, however, intended a diversion by it, though
he had discussed the lecture with the receiver. — J. H. H.)

7. Com. : Do you know where Kelly has gone ? I hear he is no longer
in Columbia.

(No reply.) (Receiver remarks to ine : " That might be a clue on cer-
tain conditions. In fact, there are three clues in it." The sender observes
in his explanation of question that he had talked with the receiver about this
person a few days before, but did not know him personally. — J. H. H.)

8. Com. : Where is Whitte this year ?

(No reply.) (Receiver remarks : * ' Suggests a fellow-student." The
sender explains that he had been speaking to receiver about the person
mentioned in message only a few days ago. He was a student in the Depart-
ment of Political Science. — J. H. H.)

9. Com. : I once met you in Central Park. Do you walk there often ?
Rec. : Suggests J. very strongly. [Correct. — J. H. H.]

Com. : Try again.

(Receiver remarks : " I did meet J. there once about three weeks ago." —
J. H. H.)

10. Com. : I believe you came from one of the western states. Did you
take your college course there 1

(Receiver remarks : " Suggests nothing.")

11. Coin. : Have you seen many operas this year ?

(No reply.) (Receiver remarks : "Suggests J. I had a conversation
with him about operas in this room." The sender comments that he had
mentioned to receiver in this conversation that he himself, the sender, had
gone to one or two of them. — J. H. H.)

12. Com. : I think you know a Mr. Washington who was at Columbia for
a while. Do you know where he is now ?

Rec. : That suggests J. I had a letter from Washington to-day.
(Receiver remarks : "That would make it almost definite that it is J."
Mr. M., the receiver, was one of W.'s best friends, and the latter was also
a close friend of the sender.— J. H. H.)

Com. : Guess again.

13. Com. : Do you remember our discussion in regard to trusts ?

(No reply.) (Receiver remarks : 4 4 Suggests nothing except that he
might have attended Goodnow's lecture before the Academy of Politico

582

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PABT

Science." The sender explains that he had no special object in sending this
message except as a diversion. — J. H. H.)

14. Com. : What is the make of your wheel ? I think you advised me to
get one.

Rec. : Suggests J. again.
(Receiver remarks that this incident regarding the advice had occurred
between them. - J. H. H.)

15. Com. : Do you think orthodoxy is a requirement in a teacher of
philosophy in a western college ?

Rec. : Suggests J. again.
(Receiver then remarks: 44 This was another circumstance in a con-
versation with J. The evidence is accumulative in favour of him." The
sender also explains that he had talked over this subject with the receiver
about two weeks before. — J. H. B.)

16. Com. : Shall you be in your office to-morrow ? You are rather hard
to find.

Rec. : The same.

(The sender explains that he had frequently gone to M.'s room and
failed to find hiin there, and that M. knew the fact.— J. H. H.)

17. Com. : I doubt it.

(No reply.) (Statement a diversion. — J. H. H.)

18. Com. : Have you read Professor Hyslop's new book ? What are your
criticisms ?

Rec. : Suggests the same person.
(Sender explains that he had talked this book over with receiver several
times.— J. H. H.)

19. Com. : Do we have a holiday on February 13th ?
Rec. : The same.

(Sender says that the question was a vague one, though pertinent.—
J. H. H.)

20. Com. : That last lecture of yours on American Political Theory was
very interesting.

Rec. : Suggests nothing.
(Receiver then adds to me: "Except another clue on another trail'
Sender comments that the statement was a diversion to change the trail. —
J. H. H.)

21. Com. : When do you give your examination ? Who am I now ?

(No reply.) (Receiver remarks : " Does not suggest anything, unless
it is a subterfuge of J." The sender explains that M., the receiver, had
spoken to him a few days before about an examination, the time of which
he, the receiver, did not know. — J. H. H.)

22. Com. : Will you come to the laboratory next Saturday morning ?
(No reply.) (Receiver remarks: "Suggests nothing.11 Sender

remarked afterwards that the query was only a diversion. — J. EL H.)

23. Com. : Has Professor Burgess recovered ? Should like to meet him
some time.

Rec. : J.

(Receiver remarks : "I had a conversation with J. about this. I have
talked with others also about the same thing." — J. H. H.)

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

583

24. Com. : Do you recall our walk last week along Riverside Drive ?
Rec. : It's J.

(Receiver remarks : " We took a walk two weeks ago along this drive
and discussed the subject of colleges. " —J. H. H.)

25. Com. : What are you willing to wager ?

Rec. : I would hang you on that if nothing more was before me.
(This being the correct person and satisfactory assurance of it having
been obtained, the experiment did not require to be carried further. —

GROUP A. — XIV.

New York, February 2nd, 1899.
Communicator : Mr. B. Receiver : Professor C.

1. Com. : We have seen each other in several places during past years.
Rec. : (No reply.) (Remark to assistant : " Nothing suggested.")

2. Com. : Elizabeth town. [Diversion by myself. — J. H. H.]

Rec. : (No reply.) (Remark to assistant: "Nothing suggested. I
have seen Hyslop himself in Elizabethtown.")

(This remark about seeing me in the town of this name is not strictly
correct. Year before last we had travelled on the cars together as far as
Westport, and parted there, C. going to place named for the summer and I
twelve miles further, though through Elizabethtown, to spend the vacation
in Keene Valley. But C. did not see me in place named. He only knew
that I passed through it.— J. H. H.)

3. Com. : I got the man you met in the mountains to lunch with you.
(No reply.) (Remark to assistant : " Nothing suggested.")

(There is a very remote connection between this statement and the name
of Elizabethtown. The latter was mentioned in the previous question in
order to put the mind of the receiver in general connection with the place
in which he had spent his vacation, both at the time suggested by the name
of the town and the following summer when he met the man who was in
the mind of the sender in the third message. The sender had intro-
duced him to the receiver in the manner here intimated.— J. H. H.)

4. Com. : The necrology of Andover Seminary.

(No reply.) (Receiver remarks to assistant: "That concerns my
father. It is not identified with other things at all.")

(The sender telegraphed it purposely in order to remind receiver of
his father, and to suggest that it came from some one who knew of his
father's work on that subject. The phrase did not suggest this, though it
did suggest the father rightly, as it must have done in the case. — J. H. H.)

5. Com. : Do you like punch ?
Rec. : Punch, the newspaper ?
Com. : Any old punch.

(This question was put as an obscure way of intimating an incident in the
lives of the two men when they were at Harvard. They had a good deal of
fun about some punch when Mr. Gough lectured in Cambridge on temp
ance. We put the case in this equivocal way to see how it would work,

J. H. H.)

584

J. M. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

though it led to no immediate identification, it reminded the receiver clearly
enough of the need of distinguishing between the paper and some incident
he could recall. — J. H. H.)

6. Com. : How do you like the Duchess of Amelia ?
Rec. : Was Chubb the man you got to lunch with me ?
Com. : Try again.

(Mr. B. did not understand the meaning of this inquiry, nor did I at the
time, as I supposed that C. had in mind some one who had introduced
a person by this name. Afterward C. told me that while in the mountains
I had brought together a Mr. Chubb and himself, and hence that he
supposed I might be the communicator. With this reminder I recalled the
circumstance that I had introduced Mr. Chubb to C, but I had wholly
forgotten it.— J. H. H.)

7. Com. : Have you heard of Hobson ?

(No reply.) (The question was intended to be equivocal, and in this
deliberate confusion of the name of an intimate classmate with that of the
present popular hero to see how the receiver's impressions would be influ-
enced. But it was evidently too obscure. — J. H. H.)

8. Com. : Were we not congratulated for being temperate ?
Rec. : Hyslop suggested by 1, 2, and 3, but no one since.

(This question refers to the same events and time that are associated
with 5. The persons in this group at Harvard were often the subjects of
much fun on this topic. The answer in reference to me is pertinent.—
J. H. H.)

9. Com. : Well, they aren't so darned sweet.

Rec. : Some one accustomed to my conversations and habits.

10. Com. : Did you enjoy our lunch at the Players' Club ?
Rec. : The tone suggests Perry. But facts don't agree.

(Question pertinent to sender as well as name of person mentioned n
reply.)

11. Com. : Who is chairman of that Committee ?
Rec. : Wheeler suggested, but facts don't agree.

(Question pertinent also to sender, as they had often served on certain
committees.)

12. Com. : I have worked with you on committees.

(No reply.) (Receiver remarks to assistant : " Doesn't mean any-
thing except to narrow it in a way to be applicable to Perry and Wheeler.'')

13. Com. : Booty.

Rec. : That would be more like Wheeler and Perry. The tone is
Perry's.

(The fact is that this is the name which C.'s little child gives one of his
assistants in his college work. — J. H. H.)

14. Com. : That's the worst I ever went anywhere.

(No reply.) (This was a phrase that a particular friend and class-mate
at college had used, and it had always amused C. very much for its oddness
and drollery, and Mr. B. was familiar with C.'s repetition of it, and was
associated with both persons. — J. H. H.)

15. Com. : Do you remember Clarence Walter Vail ?

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

585

Rec. : It's not Wheeler. (Remarks to assistant : "I was talking to
some one about that man the other day. ")

(Mr. B. had talked to C. about this man before his appointment as
assistant in their department, and one other person at the same time. The
policy adopted was against B.'s advice.— J. H. H.)

16. Com. : That is defended.

Rec. : Still like Perry. (Remarks to assistant : " B. might have
known about those things. I have forgotten him.")

(The phrase was one used in Paris by C. and B. with anothe r person
when they were there together some years ago. They had much fun about
it. The French was : il est defendn, the equivalent of the German
verboteti. — J. H. H.)

17. Com. : That wine is good to drink.
Rec. : That might be B.

(This was, of course, correct, and if the remark made by receiver to
assistant in question 1G had been sent to the communicator, the 17th question
would in all probability not have been sent, as it embodied an expression
which the receiver had used in Paris on occasions when the wine used at
meals was drinkable. — J. H. H.)

18. Com. : If we start it will rain, if we do not, it will not rain.

(No reply.) (The sentence was one that I had sent to the receiver over
the telephone during the last summer in the mountains when the prospect of
a rain spoiled a projected tramp among the mountains. I had especially
remembered it because I was struck with hearing his whispered laugh over
the telephone at the time and being astonished at it, as it was only the third
time that I had ever talked over a telephone. I wanted to test the receiver's
memory and identification of myself. But nothing came of it. The receiver
said to me afterward that he thought of something in the mountains, but
could not locate it exactly. — J. H. H.)

19. Com. : Benedict.

(No reply.) (This was the name of a man whom C. met in the moun-
tains, and I hoped to divert him from B. and to recall myself indirectly. The
name would more distinctly suggest Professor Thomas, whom receiver had
met at the same hotel and to whom reference was made in question 3. But
it failed.— J. H. H.)

20. Com. : How is your friend Jaccachi ?

Rec. : That is more like Perry. (Pertinent to B. also.)

21. Com. : Have you seen any cranes lately ?
Rec. : StiH sounds like Perry.

(The term *' cranes" was connected with a standing joke between several
persons, of whom the communicator was one. — J. H. H.)

22. Com. : How long since you smoked your first cigar ?

(No reply.) (Remarks to assistant Going off again.") (The sender
expected this to suggest him at once, as he was present on the occasion
indicated.— J. H. H.)

23. Com. : "K.O.A."

Rec. : Well, the only man That sounds like B.

(This was the name of a Society to which the two belonged. — J. H. H.)

24. Com. : I shall meet you in 4 Hollis next commencement.

586

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

Rec. : I should say B.
(This had been the place where the two had been together at college. —
J. H. H.)

26. Com. : Went.

Rec. : That would be 8. also.
(This was the name of a friend who was one of two with B. in Paris
together witn C. and connected with earlier questions that do not require to
be mentioned again. — J. H. H.)
The answer was correct.

The present experiment has more resemblances to the report of the
phenomena recorded regarding Mrs. Piper than any other that I performed.
I felt that I could give it that character more safely than before, because I
could assume that the receiver was familiar enough to understand the style
of messages to be sent, and the results proved that in that respect I was not
mistaken. There was one mistake on the part of my assistant at the
receiver's end of the line, due to an earnest but mistaken caution that failed
to make perfectly clear what the receiver was to do. My intention was that
he should know that he was not only to identify any one that the incidents
recalled, but also to decide finally and assuredly who was sending the
messages. In this case the receiver did not clearly understand that he was
to infer who was sending the telegrams. Hence the result was a failure in
this respect, though the experiment has a value of another kind. The
failure is not wholly due to the misunderstanding mentioned, as the identifi-
cation of others intended by the incidents mentioned was correct, and ouly
the improbability that Mrs. B. should be present kept her out of the range
of suggestion. She should have been as readily suggested as the persons
actually named, and no doubt would have been had not the slight misunder-
standing alluded to occurred. The experiment, nevertheless, has an interest
for features that will come under notice in their place.

1. Com. : I know you, I know I do. You will be surprised to find me
here. I hope to see you after this some time.

(No reply.)

2. Com. : Oh ! I forget one thing. It will come. Yes. Do you
remember the teachers' college at — I forget where.

(Receiver remarks to assistant : " Possibly Hervey, but 4 1 forget where '
makes it impossible.")

3. Com. : Do you remember the periodical in the junior year, which
showed 44 United we stand ; divided we fall " ? Great Scott !

Rec. : Suggests a man in my class — Arrowsmith.
(The suggestion was correct, and the person named was the one Mrs. B.
had in mind when she gave the incident. — J. H. H.)
Com. : Try again.

GROUP A. — XV.

New York, February Id, 1899.
Communicator : Mrs. B. Receiver : Professor B.

Appendix IV.

587

4. Com. : Archie, Archie. You know Archie. He left . • you*
came . . •

Rec. : Arrowsmith again or Crosby.
(The incident that we had in mind, suggested by myself, was Professor
B. 's succession to the chair in philosophy and the name of his predecessor,
somewhat as a diversion. The idea seems not to have been caught. — J. H. H. )

5. Com. : S . . . r . . knew you, am glad ... I am forgetting.
Rec. : No clue.

(The letters here were part of the name of the receiver's sister and
daughter, and the nonsense was thrown in to show incoherence. — J. H. H.)

6. Com. : I hope to make it clear. I am satisfied that I can.
Rec. : No clue.

(This was a mere diversion of the same kind as the previous message
imitating the Piper phenomena. — J. H. H.)

7. Com. : Brooklyn wedding. You acted as best man.

Rec. : Suggests H. T. Peck. (Correct. This was the person in the
mind of the sender.)

8. Com. : O . . rg . . . I am forgetting. 0 . . . . an. Oh ! yes,
grin . . der.

Rec. : Suggests nothing.
(This was a simulation of the attempt to say something about an incident
respecting an " organ grinder " which it was possible that the receiver would
recall. But it was not recognised. )

9. Com. : Now I think I can say what I tried a moment ago. S . . r . . h
. . . am here . . . not remember. Oh, yes. You remember me.
S...r..h S y...

Rec. : Nothing.

(This was in part a repetition of the attempt to suggest the name of
4t Sarah Schuyler "—a pseudonym — the receiver's sister-in-law. The effect
is apparent in the receiver's reply. — J. H. H.)

10. Com. : Do you know John B. ?
Rec. : Suggests Mr. Pine.

(Suggestion correct, and the question was asked merely as a diversion
before the next, which was to complete what was continued in the last.
-J. H. H.)

11. Com. : It is Sa . . . . h S . . h . . . . 1 . . r.

Rec. : Suggests that Sarah Schuyler may be sending. Number 5
suggests the same.

(This was the correct interpretation. — J. H. H.)

12. Com. : Well . . . glad to see you, H . . r . . y R . . le. You
know me.

Rec. : (Remarks to assistant, " If the number of dots is right, it
suggests no one.")

(This is an interesting remark, as there is no doubt that the number of
dots in the original message may have been misleading. But the name
intended was that of an intimate friend. — J. H. H.)

13. Com. : Dear me ! Do you ... I forget. Yes, yes. I love her.
She is yours. But she is not here. He . . . . t . . d . . 1 . . gh . .

Rec. : Suggests nothing.

Digitized by Google

588

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PABT

(The name was intended to be that of the receiver's daughter, or, rather,
the pet name given her, only partly spelt out.— J. H. H.)

14. Com. : Green . . . gone . . . comes . . . parrot. Cup
. . . tea . . . London.

Rec. Suggests nothing.
(The full message would have been : "A green parrot and a cup of tea
in London," representing an incident which the receiver would be supposed
to have recognised at once and located the sender. — J. H. H.)

15. Com. : Juanita.

(No reply.) (The word was intended to suggest in a dark way Mrs.
B.'s sister, whom they called "Nita." — J. H. H.)

16. Com. : Do you remember the concert and college songs, Nita ?
Rec. : Suggests D. L. Haigh.

(Suggestion correct. — J. H. H.)

17. Com. : Sir Joshua's parrot greets you.

Rec. : Some incident suggested by 13 and 14, but no person suggested.
(This was held until the 17th was sent.— J. H. H.)

(The incident was that of some amusement caused by a parrot in London
when only Mrs. B. and Professor B.'s sister were present with him.—
J. H. H.)

18. Com. : Do you remember the mouse hunt and the purchase necessary
to catch them ?

Rec. : Incident suggested, but no person.

19. Com. : Thirteen hats and one bonnet, and an ocean trip.
Rec. : No person suggested.

(As the previous question had been intended to narrow down the guess-
ing to Mrs. B. and Professor B.'s sister, this last was intended to narrow
it down to Mrs. B. herself. The incidents were evidently remembered, but
the probability that I should have secured the presence of Mrs. B. was so
slight to the receiver that, with the understanding of the experiment not so
clear as I had intended it, no suggestion of Mrs. B. seems to have occurred.
— J. H. H.) (Cf. Q. 3, p. 555 ; Q. 10, p. 564 ; and Q. 11, 13, 15, p. 560.)

20. Com. : I am here. Co . . in . . e E. Ca . . 1 . . n.

(No reply.) (This is the pseudonym for the full name, only partly
spelt out, of Mrs. B. It would be "Corinne E. Catlin."— J. H. H.)

GROUP A. — XVI.

New York, Febwary 2nd, 1899.
Communicator : Professor P. Receiver : Professor B.

The feature of this experiment which should be remarked before using
it for any purposes of inference so important as the others is that it had to
be performed under limitations that did not affect some of the others. I
had but half an hour to perform it. This necessitated more haste in the
formation of the messages. The success was thus bound to be accomplished
more easily than in others. There was a better understanding of the nature
of the experiment than the evening before when the same person acted as

Digitized by

Appendix IV.

589

receiver. The incidents sent this time, owing to the short allotment of time
at command, also assured more ready clues to identity, though there is one
interest in the result that is useful in spite of this fact. It is the spontaneous
discovery by the receiver of the cumulative force of certain incidents
after the clue is detected, which was not suggested at first.

1. Com. : The way is clear. I shall see you. I am glad to know you
are here. You and Mrs. B. called on me some time ago.

Rec. : Suggests J. B. Reynolds.
(The statement was not intended to give any special suggestion, but only
as a1 start to the experiment, and though it had statements in it that were
true regarding the sender, who expected, for instance, to see the receiver in
half-an-hour, and had called on him some months previously, yet the mes-
sage was not designed to recall any one in particular. — J, H. H.)

2. Com. : I first saw you at your graduation, and have watched your
career with the interest of a sympathetic human heart.

Rec. : Professor P.
(Incident and identification correct.)

3. Com. : The waves washed ovor my back and you only laughed.
Rec. : Nothing suggested.

4. Com. : Yes. ... I cannot think. . . . Oh ! do you. . . .
B . . s . . . . e know si r. No, your sist ....

Rec. : Nothing suggested.
(This incoherent message was sent both to test whether the letters would
suggest the receiver's sister and to serve as a diversion from the answer to
the second question, when the next which was to be pertinent for the same
person should be sent. — J. H. H.)

5. Com. : Years and seas have separated us, but it made no difference, E.
Rec. : Nothing suggested.

(The letter (4 E " in this message was the initial of the first part of the
sender's name, and the reference of the whole sentence merely a general one
to their friendship, which had been connected with their experiences as
suggested by statement.— J. H. H.)

6. Com. : I stabbed my enemy and still you laughed.
Rec. : Nothing suggested.

(This statement refers to an incident which had occurred between sender
and receiver when the sender was struggling with a fish. The receiver
played some trick on the sender and laughed at him. The suggestive feature
was intended to be mainly in the term 44 laugh," as also found in question
3. — J. H. H.)

7. Com. : I laboured under a heavy load and still you laughed y.

Rec. : Nothing suggested.

(The sender was once carrying a heavy load of wood on his back and the
receiver laughed at him in a way about which the two had some fun. The
letter "y " was the last one in sender's name. — J. H. H.)

8. Com. : I had your portrait made, but you knew it not.
Rec. : Nothing suggested.

(Each had taken a picture of the other without the other's knowledge of
it at the time.— J. H. H.)

Digitized by

590

J. U. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

9. Com. : Do you ... I forget. Oh ! here it comes. Our friend

Mr. D What did you say? Dun No,

it's gone.

Rec. : Nothing suggested.

(There are here vague hints of a name recalling an intimate circumstance
in the lives of the sender and receiver. — J. H. H.)

10. Com. : I'll try again. D. U. N. V. I. L. L. E. Good . . .
Rec. : P .

(This message is a completion and more distinct suggestion of what was
intended in the previous one. — J. H. H.)

11. Com. : Chicken -a fowl of any age. Baedeker. Wasn't that funny ?
Rec. : P .

(Receiver remarks to assistant: "Now 6 suggests P ." Then on

being asked whether any person was suggested by other questions, the
answer was 4 * that 6, 7, 5 and 3 suggest P .)

(This is correct and illustrates one of the objects of the experiments very
clearly, which was to see the spontaneous effect of cumulative incidents on
the judgment, in this case started by the discovery of a connection between
11 and G, and completed after suggestion to look for more. — J. H. H.)

12. Com. : Forbes' messes.

Rec. : Recognised, but confuses me.
(This incident was intended to be the climax of the experiment, but
there was some doubt in spite of that fact. There was, however, no
further time for its continuance.— J. H. H.) (Cf. Q. 19, p. 688.)

GROUP A.— XVII.

New York, February 2nd, 1899.

Communicator : Mr. W. Receiver : Mr. D.

(In this experiment I record notes that are fuller in regard to the different
points of view of sender and receiver than any that have yet been indicated.
It will make clearer what occurred in some others or perhaps in all of them,
though it is not necessary to record all of them with this detail. The answers
sufficiently indicate the general difference of apperception mass in the two
subjects. But this case is especially interesting in this regard, because the
receiver thought that the experiment was one carried on by the man at his
side, Mr. F., who was only an assistant in the experiment. This helped to
keep the suggestive nature of some questions in a broader field, as was
desired. -J. H. H.)

1. Com. : Ten years ago we were much out of sympathy in several points.

(No reply.) (Remark : " No one suggested.")
(The same answer is given to the first five questions.— J. H. H.)

Note by Com. : At that time we were not acquainted, but were
attending rival colleges, A. and D.

Note by Rec. : No. 1 is in general absolutely undenotative ; from
W.'s viewpoint, misleading, he being unknown to me ten years ago.

Digitized by

XLl]

Appendix IV,

591

2. Com. : But later we got together much more.
(No reply.)

Note by Com. : Later we both went to Harvard.
Note by Rec : Indefinite.

3. Com. : There have been many coincidences in our lives, but there is
one striking contrast.

(No reply.)

Note by Com. : The coincidences are : The same colleges, Harvard
and Columbia ; the same general line of study ; many courses taken
together ; many points of common interest ; class trips together ; the same
college fraternity. Contrast : He is married, I am not.

Note by Rec. : Common circumstances indefinite.

4. Com. : I was once in a room with you alone. We talked about an
hoar or two.

(No reply.)

Note by Com. : True, but felt that it was common with others also.

Note by Rec. : Mr. F. represented this affair (unintentionally) as his
research, and I had no notion that any one else not present with me was
concerned. The presumption then made F. naturally the focus of conscious-
ness until replaced. The circumstance suggested was a common one in a
psychological laboratory. I could think of no occasion on which the circum-
stance coincided with F. in particular.

5. Com. : We have a young friend who is making quite a name for
himself.

(No reply.)

Note by Com. : Statement refers to Dr. Th., who was with us at
Harvard.

Note by Rec. : Indefinite, but a common circumstance.

6. Com. Do you still insist on raising the window on a cold winter's day ?
Rec. : That suggests several people.

Note by Com. : This was characteristic of Mr. D., and he did it in
the Seminar room a few weeks ago and at other times when I remonstrated
with him.

Note by Rec. : This suggested members of the family who care for
more heat than myself.

7. Com. : Do you expect that Associateship ?
Rec. : That suggests F., or possibly my wife.

Note by Com. : I had in mind a position in a pathological institution,
while I recognised that Mr. D. might think of something else of which I
knew, though I had not talked with him about the case he would have in
mind. The question was general.

Note by Rec. : Distinctly pointed towards F., he besides two or three
(whose connection with this research was improbable) alone knowing my
plans in this regard. W., as I supposed, was quite ignorant of them.

8. Com. : Are you going to Nova Scotia again next summer ? I know
of some pleasant villages on the Jersey coast and Long Island.

Rec. : Surely F.

Note by Com. : F. had talked with Mr. D. about this, and I also

592

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

about Nova Scotia, but not about New Jersey. I intended the suggestion
to be remote.

Note by Rec. : A recent conversation with F. about Nova Scotia
naturally associated him with this question. The latter part of it was
especially suggestive of F., W. being concerned in neither to any such
extent, and in the latter part not at all.

9. Com. : I once heard you deliver a lecture from the platform.

Rec. : It suggests F. Not literally true.

Note by Com. : I heard D. read a paper before the Seminar at
Harvard. When he did so he stepped upon the platform. The word
44 lecture" here was deliberately chosen for diversion and ambiguity, the
stress being upon "platform," that feature not being in the Seminar rooip
at Columbia.

Note by Rec. : Statement untrue of any one. I never delivered what
would properly be called a 44 lecture." There was no reason why it should
suggest F. , save the present apperception mass and habit

10. Com. : Do you remember riding in a 'bus with a crowd of men on
a cold day ?

Rec. : I remember having done that several times.

Note by Com. : The class under Professor James at Harvard went
out to Dan vers to visit the Asylum for the insane there, and D. was with us
at the time.

Note by Rec. : This recalled events with which no one possibly
conceivable could have any relation. The instance referred to by W. was
not recalled, having made no impression.

11. Com. : You once invited me to your home.
Rec. : That's F.

Note by Com. : True ; but I did not go.

Note by Rec. : F. took lunch with ine at my home very recently ;
W., although invited some time ago, has said nothing about it recently.

12. Com. : I was with you once when you were having a good deal of
trouble with a machine.

Rec. : That's F.

Note by Com. : True ; the experiment was last fall, and such an
incident might apply to several persons.

Note by Rec. : F. , being Assistant in the college, would naturally be
suggested by this, though it was not memory that prompted my reply.
No special incident was suggested.

13. Com. : That was an elegant beef-steak.
Rec : F. sure.

Note by Com. : I was aware that this applied to F., and not to myself.

Note by Rec. : F. and I had a beef -steak on a special lunch occasion to
which thia refers, and the statement, so far as W. is concerned, is distinctly
misleading. I never had a steak with W., though he had heard F. speak
of it.

14. Cora. : You once put me through some Sloyd gymnastics.
Rec. : That suggests several.

Note by Com. : True ; the experiment applied to several and was
performed last fall.

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

593

Note by Rec. : Suggested several men whom I had as subjects in a
research including gymnastics — seven or eight men. F. was not one of
them ; W. was.

15. Com. : I once asked a famous man a question at your desire.
Rec. : Several possibilities. F. most probable.

Note by Com. : Receiver once requested me to ask Professor Bowditch
about flexor and extensor muscles.

Note by Rec. : I have no idea even now of the incident, if not
misleading, referred to. The only reason for the association of it with F. was
my habits and the present apperception mass.

16. Com. : Some of my friends lived in your wife's town.
Rec. : That's F.

Note by Com. : D. and myself were talking about this a short
time ago.

Note by Rec. : This referred to a few remarks once made by some one
and myself, and habit made it seem like F. rather than W. I could not
recall which of the two.

17. Com. : Do you remember a refined lady who talked with us very
sweetly on religious themes ?

Rec. : It suggests nothing.

Com. : It was on the top of a hill.

(No reply.)

Note by Com. : This was a true and specific incident with which D.
and I alone were connected besides the lady, and was intended to suggest me
beyond doubt. It also represents an incident on the occasion denoted by
question 10.

Note by Rec. : This suggested no one and no incident. It was
obviously misleading. (Of. Q. 12, p. 590, etc.)

(The receiver recalls, however, since writing this note, a nd after talking
with the sender, that he once had a conversation with a lady on the top of a
hill on serious themes, but it was not the occasion here in the mind of the
communicator, and was on a different subject. — J. H. H.)

18. Com. : We once walked together alongside a large graveyard.

Rec. : Happened several times to me ; no one in particular suggested.

Note by Com. : This message referred to an incident similar to the
one mentioned in question 10, though it was another asylum.

Note by Rec. : The incident referred to was not recalled, but it was
known not to refer to F.

19. Com. : Who was the leading homoeopathic doctor in Bloomington ?
Rec. : That suggests my wife.

Note by Com. : This referred to the father of the man I knew in the
town of D.'s wife, and was also connected with question 10. I was trying
to make D. understand who that man was, and by that means suggest
myself.

Note by Rec. : This suggested no one but the person intended and
others improbably connected with this research.

20. Com. : Mine was the first familiar face you saw as you came to a cer
tain new place to work.

594

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Rec. : That suggests Mr. W.
[Correct. — J. H. H.]

Note by Com. : Mr. W.'s face was the first that Mr. D. recognised as
that of an acquaintance when he came to Columbia.

Note by Rec. : As a matter of fact and recollection it was W.

21. Com. : Wo were once interested in the same girl.
Rec. : Suggests Mr. Breece.

Note by Com. : I had spoken to D. about a certain young lady a few
days ago, and he was interested in getting her into a position.

(It should be remarked, however, that the statement is very ambiguous,
and can be given a very different meaning from that which the sender
might have intended.— J. H. H.)

Note by Rec. : W. was not suggested by this, but rather another
student in the laboratory who worked with me at Cambridge.

22. Com. : Do they still call you 4 'Doc " ?
Rec. : Suggests several.

Note by Com. : This refers to an incident at Cambridge that explains
iteelf, and was closely associated with myself.

Note by Rec. : Many familiar acquaintances call me " Doc."

23. Com. : I have less hair on my head than you.
Rec. : That's F. He has very little.

Note by Com. : This I thought quite pertinent, and calculated to
suggest me distinctly, though it applied with less force to F.

Note by Rec. : W. has less hair than F. The judgment is accounted
for by my apperception mass.

24. Com. : What emotion do you get from valerianite ?
Rec. : I think that's F.

Note by Com. : This was pertinent to me, but was intended to suggest
Mr. Huntsman and to break up the preconception evidently haunting the
receiver.

Note by Rec. : Suggested laboratory students, but no one in particular.

25. Com. : Two times recently we had to wait for a tardy street car.
Rec. : That suggests Mr. W .

Note by Com. : Coming from the lectures of Dr. Boas at the Museum
of Natural History, once two weeks ago, and once a week ago, Mr. D. and
myself had to wait for the street cars.

Note by Rec. : The incident referred only to W.

26. Cora : Most worthy A N .

Rec. : That's W., sure.

Note by Com. : This was the name of the college fraternity and the
sign by which it was known. D. and myself were members of it.

Note by Rec. : Password in a secret college fraternity. W. was the
only ** brother" concerned at Columbia. This made the conclusion a
practical certainty.

As the two gentlemen who engaged in this experiment were entire
strangers to me, and as the results must not depend upon my trust in their
good faith alone, I secured their signatures to the following statement
regarding their relation to the bond fide nature of the experiment.

J. H. Hyslop,

Digitized by

xll] Appendix IV. 595

Columbia University, in the City of New York,

February 2nd, 1899.
I, the undersigned, state upon my honour that I have not told Mr.
Dearborn anything beforehand that would lead to my identity or prevent
this experiment from being entirely secret.

Robert S. Woodworth.

Walter T. Marvin.

[J. H. HV8L0P.

Columbia University, in the City of New York,

February 2nd, 1899.
I, the undersigned, state upon my honour that I have not heard from Mr.
Woodworth nor anyone else anything beforehand that would prevent this
experiment from being entirely secret.

George S. Dearborn.

„T. / Walter T. Marvin.

Witnesses H>

GROUP B.— I.

New York, January 30tft, 1899.

This set of experiments diners but slightly from those of Group A. But
there is enough difference to separate their record from that of the former.
The same general problem of identification is involved, but it is a little
more complicated and suggestive. The chief aim of Group A was to identify
the sender, whether the other persons mentioned were correct or not. The
aim in this group will be to represent two or more personalities in the
incidents and to test the receiver's judgment in regard to the accuracy of his
distinction between the different persons involved in the incidents. This is
to some extent attempted in some of Group A, but not in as systematic a
manner as in this set. Besides, there may be less uniformity of character in
the present set. But with whatever differences between the two groups,
there will be very decided resemblances in the fact that the same kind of
incidents will be chosen and the same secrecy involved in the situation of
the receiver. The proper difference between the two sets of experiments
will consist in the attempt simultaneously to secure the identification of two
persons by incidents that will not fuse into the same apperception mass.
There may also be some variety in the group, representing slight differences
in method and complexity, but on the whole it will consist of cases such
as have just been described.

This experiment is one in which the subject of it was brought to
communicate with another, and was detained as receiver without previous
expectation that such would be the case. Hence there was all the secrecy
desired. In it I myself personated the incidents in the life of another
person, and threw into them expressions that belonged only to myself and
the life of ourselves, so that there was the opportunity to discover the
identity of more than one person in the case.

Digitized byG0&gIe

596

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

Communicator : Professor Hyslop. Receiver : Mrs. Hyslop.

1. Com. : I believe you originally came from Philadelphia, did you not ?
I remember that you told me that you used to go to school there.

(No reply.)

2. Com. : Well, you got married at last without being threatened with an
old maid's lot. Do you remember any one who moved about the time
you did ?

(Before sending the question about the person who had moved, Mrs.
Hyslop remarked to my assistant: "I guess it is Mr. Hyslop himself."
Then evidently a pause, as the further note by assistant says : '* Yes, I do.
I was wondering if he would get Mrs. O. down here."

The suspicion that the statement belonged to me was correct, as no one
was likely to allude to an old maid's lot except myself. But the latter
sentence in the message had no reference to me whatever, and the distinction
between it and the first is clearly implied.

Then after sending the query about where the person in mind had lived
before moving, the assistant records the remark : ** I think that's Mrs. O. I
am sure." Then the question about her son's sleep came, and pertained to
incidents familiar to Mrs. O. and my wife. — J. H. H.)

Rec. : Did the person who moved when we did go from 149th Street f

Com. : It may be. You must say, I can't.
(I had in mind the person who was recognised later as Mrs. W. , and I
sent my reply here as a diversion, though I thought that my wife had in
mind another person to whom this might apply, as I found later that it did,
but I had forgotten the circumstance that this party had moved from this
street.— J. H. H.) (Cf. pp. 544-646.)

Rec. : Did your youngest son sleep well last night ?

Cora. : Yes.

Rec. : Mrs. O., wait and we'll go home together.

Cora. : Try the next question.
(The question about the " youngest son sleeping well " was clear to me,
as I was aware who was in the mind of the receiver, and though I had not
intended to suggest this person, 1 saw that the question about the moving
fitted the person in mind, as further reply by receiver showed. But I
answered ** yes" in order to keep up the deception for a time, and it seems
to have confirmed, as it perhaps should, the impression already formed. The
answer asking Mrs. O. was pertinent, though I had not intended her at the
outset of my question. I have found since also that my impression about the
time that Mrs. W. had moved was not so accurate as I thought, and
that the statement fitted Mrs. O. better than Mrs. W. This is an interesting
fact, though the difference of time in the moving of Mrs. W. does not exclude
her in general from the question. But I was wrong nevertheless about its
degree of nearness to our own moving, and so the suggestion was correctly
answered from the point of view of the receiver. — J. H. H.)

3. Com. : Winifred has quite a plump look, has she not ? I understand
she likes to tease. Where did I find out that ?

(No reply.)

4. Com. : Do you remember that ray mother was ill for a long time, and
that I had much care and worry during her illness ?

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

597

Rec. : The same person. (Remarks to assistant : * 'Don't remember.")

5. Com. : If I said, " dad bob it," would you know me ?

Rec. : Send more. (Remarks to assistant : "Mr. Hyslop says 'dad
bob it ' sometimes. ")

(The expression was one that an old schoolmate had deliberately used in
order to avoid the practice of swearing, and it had always struck me as so
funny that sometimes when a humorous situation called for an exclamation
I would use this expression to my wife, who had been told of its origin.
But I had not used the expression at least for a year. I threw it in here
to see if it would be properly placed and distinguished from the other
incidents, and later this result is apparent. — J. H. H.)

6. Com. : Just where was it that you lived in Philadelphia ? I lived
there myself, but do not recollect your address for the moment.

Rec. : Send more.

7. Com. : Who says Snobble Snumpkins ?
Rec. : That's what I call Winifred.

(This name is merely a pet name with which Mrs. H. is accustomed to
tease our little girl, and it was thrown in here partly for diversion and
partly for the object of this experiment. — J. H. H.)

Com. : Whom have you told this ?

(No reply.)

8. Com. : Do you remember where you first met me, and what were the
circumstances ?

Rec.: (No reply.) (Remarks to assistant: "The fourth throws
me off.")

(It is clear here that the receiver's mind is beginning to look elsewhere
for a clue, and the next question shows the readiness with which the two
clues are correctly put together. — J. H. H.)

9. Com. : Do you remember that I bought a piano and began the study
of music to amuse myself before the illness and death of my mother ?

Rec : Did you ever live at 167, West 81st Street ?
(This it* the correct question to ask, as it names the former residence of
the person I had in mind, Mrs. W. But I sent a message to turn the
receiver off again as follows. — J. H. H.)

Com. : We'll try further.

10. Com. ; Who says Squiggins ?

Rec. : Mr. Hyslop says that. Please come back to the main track.

(The name here was the pet name with which I teased my little boy, and
its recognition has no special consequence, but the added request to come
back to the main track shows very clearly that the receiver refused to identify
it with the suspected Mrs. W., who I knew was not aware of the expression
at all. This interpretation of the reply was spontaneously confirmed by Mrs.
Hyslop's remark afterwards that Mrs. W. knew nothing of this. — J. H. H.)

(To my assistant Mrs. Hyslop adds the remark : " Mr. Hyslop sends
5th, 7th and 10th questions.")

11. Com. : Do you remember that the last time I saw you I remarked that
it was easier to come up to your place than I had thought it was ?

Rec. : Do you live on 121st Street ? Then a moment later : It's time
for me to go home ; say yes or no.

598

/. H. Hyelop, Ph.D.

[PABT

Com. : We shall go on until you are correct.
(The misleading nature of this message is apparent without comment. —
J. H. H.)

12. Com. : Don't you remember that funny statement of little George,
that "certain neighbouring children would not smile at him until he got
tame " ? I think that was awfully 'cute. Then he said it without the
slightest sense of humour. Guess me, now.

Rec. : 5, 7, 10, and 12 are Mr. Hyslop's questions. Is Mrs. W. there 1
(This answer has considerable interest. It shows that the receiver's
memory was good enough to recall the fact that Mrs. W. neither knew the
incident indicated about my little boy nor could be identified with the
reference to the want of the sense of humour in my boy, which was a matter
of frequent remark to my wife and only a few others who could not be
suggested in any of the messages here sent. This was what I had aimed
at.^J. H. H.)

13. Coin. : Do you remember that you bought some of your table-ware at
the store I know so well in Philadelphia ?

Rec. : That's Mrs. W. At the Simons store. I'm going home. Mrs.
W. can come out and see me. (Then, a moment later) : Is Mrs. W. there ?
Com. : You are right in your guess, but Mrs. W. is not here.
Mrs. W. lives in New York, and is a sister of the person whose store in
Philadelphia is named. (This 13th question was sent merely to seal the
suggestions given in the others, and it was natural from the nature of the
previous experiments that Mrs. W.'s presence would be supposed. —
J. H. H.)

This set of experiments can be classed in Group B, though there are
many features of it that would justify placing it in Group A. There is the
main purpose to seek for the identification of a single person, as the largest
part of the incidents chosen relate to the chief person to be identified ; but as
there was a distinct purpose to throw me off the main track on certain
other definite persons, the experiment can be classed in Group B. It also
differs from those conducted with the telegraph line in that this method
of communicating between the sender and receiver was abandoned for
that of using an intermediary who should either bring the messages to me
or send them by mail without using the handwriting of the person to be
identified. The secrecy and method in all other respects were the same
as in the use of the telegraph. I have also the advantage of studying
myself the nature of the situation and mental operations directly, where
before I had to largely infer it until informed by interrogation of the parties
But in this experiment I was myself the receiver, and was in a position to
know quite distinctly the conditions under which the inferences of my other
subjects were made. The results were the same, and can be studied with the
same interest and profit.

Communicator : Doctor F. Receiver : Professor Hyslop.

1. Com. : I knew you several years ago.
Rec. : No suggestion.

GROUP B.-II.

Appendix IV.

599

(This message was not intended to have any special pertinence accord-
ing to subsequent statement of sender.)

2. Com. : Were you not on Amsterdam Avenue about two weeks ago ?
Rec. : Yes, Miss Stettheimer.

(1 had in mind the incident which I had sent as communicator to this
lady as receiver in a previous set of experiments ; then, assuming that the
sender had in view the same part of the Avenue that I had, the inference was
pertinent, and since the coincidence could hardly have been true of any one
else, it would have been correct ; but afterwards I found that the sender
had in view another part — the other end of the Avenue— of which I should
never have thought, in spite of the fact that it was the end below the college
that I came over every day. Consequently the case is a very pretty illustra-
tion of the illusion of apperception. The identification was correct from my
memory of the possible persons who saw me about the time .mentioned on
the part of the Avenue I thought of, but as regards the part thought of by
the sender it was a mistake, and illustrates the misunderstanding that can
easily occur between communicators and sitters where the statements are
capable of a variety of meanings in spite of their apparent simplicity. —
J. H. H.)

3. Com. : You seemed to be carrying a copy of The Sun.
Bee. : No suggestion.

(Only on two occasions within any recent date had I carried a copy
of The Sun, and when the question came to me I had some little difficulty
in recalling whether it was on Amsterdam Avenue that I had carried
both of them. At last before answering I remembered that it was on
Third Avenue that I could have been seen carrying it once and on
Amsterdam Avenue in the second case, but as I could remember seeing no
one on either occasion, I could not even make an intelligible guess. But the
communicator's explanation of the question afterwards shows that it had
less definiteness and pertinence than I was disposed and entitled to consider
it when taken alone. He says that he did not know that this was a fact
regarding The Sim, but that he had seen me on Amsterdam Avenue from his
window with a newspaper in my hand and simply knew about the circumstance
that would possibly make a reference to this particular paper relevant,
though the statement was not known nor intended to be as pertinent as it
seemed to be to me. — J. H. H.)

4. Com. : I should think you might reply to such a so-called critique.
Rec. : No suggestion.

(No special importance was intended by this question. It was only a
more specific suggestion of the thought in the mind of the sender, limiting
the application in his mind— and unknown to him also in mine — to
one of the cases in which I could have been seen carrying a copy of The Sun.
In this case again, it was only the failure to remember any one seen on the
Avenue at the time I carried the copy in question that prevented me from a
guess as pertinent from my point of view as the second message, though
from that of the communicator it had little but an imaginary pertinence. —
J. H.H.)

5. Com. : I once met you in a public conveyance.

Rec. : No suggestion. The statement would apply to many.

Digitized by Google

600

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

(Inquiry of the sender shows that the expression 44 public conveyance"
was used purposely as a misleading form of language, as the thing in mind
was a ferry-boat, while I thought of an omnibus and street car. It repre-
sented a true occurrence as between myself and the communicator, but was
obscure and trivial, as it did not purport to mean anything that I should
either necessarily or probably be expected to remember. But my memory
had to be tested as preliminary to more specific incidents. — J. H. H.)

6. Com. : Later I saw you at a reception.

Rec. : Would apply to many. No suggestion.
(A true incident, but not specially significant according to the statement
of the communicator. — J. H. H.)

7. Com. : Do you know who is to review your book for the Political
Science QuarteHyf

Rec. : No. But it could be Merriam.
(I thought of three persons here as likely to put this question, but I
decided for the one mentioned in my answer on the ground of general
improbability for the other two, as being too open a question for them to
put, and the one named had not only taken part in these experiments, but
had been in the room recently and had as an outsider taken the lectures
which made up the book. My inference was a mere guess, rather as a
possibility than any inference involving any assurance. But the sender
intended it as a means of keeping my mind on as many tacks as possible. —
J. H. H.)

8. Com. : I shall be very glad to receive a copy if you have any to spare.
Rec. : No suggestion. (Question of no special significance.)

9. Com. : Shall I see you at the next faculty meeting ?
Rec. : No.

(Communicator explains that the question was intended to open the way
to a more definite suggestion of a colleague later on and to continue the
general object of diverting my mind toward as many persons as possible. —
J. H. H.)

10. Com. : How is your brother now ?

Rec. : No suggestion, though if my memory were good, I could limit
this question to a few.

(This question was far more definite than the sender imagined, as the
intermediary who was acquainted with its purpose at once noticed and
expressed afterward his surprise at the reception it met. Still I had thought
of something quite different from what the sender had in mind, and could
not have guessed the incident he intended by it. He had met my
brother who was here for a short time several years ago. five I think, and I
could not imagine who it could be that was in any way acquainted with him.
He was somewhat, yes, considerable, of an invalid at the time, and was
unable to continue his course on account of his illness. But I thought of
acquaintances of this period only as a possibility, my main attention being
directed to the possibility that the brother was concerned who was specially
mentioned in my sittings at Boston, which I had detailed to only a few
students, and I was trying to limit the probabilities to the two or three
most likely to think of them. But I had to weigh the probabilities between
my invalid brother, with the possible persons who might have known him,

Digitized by Google

xu.]

Appendix IV.

601

and those who might have put the question from the memory of my narrative,
and I could make no probable guess, though the question was much more
specific from my point of view than from that of the communicator. The
sender also knew nothing of my brother's illness. — J. H» H.)

11. Com. : When did you hear from George last ?
Rec. : No suggestion.

(I betrayed from my manner to the intermediary my consciousness of an
interesting pertinence in this question, as I had another brother by this
name, and coming after the previous question it definitely excluded my
invalid brother from the case, as this brother George had never been in the
city and his name could be known only to those who had heard me narrate
the results of my Piper sittings, where this brother was mentioned, and he
was the one I had in mind as the alternative to the invalid brother. Still
I could not definitely identify the communicator in any way. Further his
own explanation of the question is that it had no special object, the name
George having come into his mind by mere chance. From his point of view
it was therefore neither a true incident nor a pertinent question, while as
a fact also I had not narrated my experiences to him. Consequently its
pertinence was a mere matter of chance.— J. H. H.)

12. Com. : Is Mrs. Hyslop well ?
Rec. : Marvin.

(This answer was suggested by the relative pertinence of this question to
the line of thought suggested by the two previous ones. They all fit together,
and as there were in my mind only two persons likely to ask all three
of them, and one of these was in the room with me, I guessed the other.
From my point of view this answer was most probable, but as there was no
cumulative purpose in the three questions and no special purpose in this one
by the communicator, but only a question of general diversion, we see a most
interesting source of illusion between sender and receiver. — J. H. H.)

13. Com. : Were you not a candidate for a position some time ago, for
which you were unsuccessful ?

Rec. : Yes, but no suggestion.
(Communicator states that this refers to a true incident of which he
knew, but which was a different one from that which I had in mind. The
one in his mind was some eleven years ago, and the one suggested to me by
the question was not luore than four or five years ago. But in either case it
was not a very suggestive question, especially the case in his mind,
as I was not likely to have mentioned it to him, and not likely to have
remembered it if I did. Still it is pertinent, and it might be assumed
possible for me to recall the fact, but the more important case in my mind
prevented association from going any farther. — J. H. H.)

14. Com. : Do you recall lecturing a few years ago before a body of men ?
You talked of depth.

Rec. : Cushing.

(The communicator was present at this lecture, and my answer showed
that his question was rightly interpreted, and the name indicated was that
of the chairman of the evening. I was asked to talk on experiments in
space perception in company with another officer of the college who was to
talk on another subject. There were only two names besides my own

602

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

suggested by the question, and I had no memory of any others whatever,
and, as I was practically certain that my colleague could not be the sender,
while the man named was in the institution at present, and could easily have
been the communicator, I ventured on his name, though conscious that it
could as well or better be some one else whom I could not recall. Hence
both question and answer were pertinent, though a defect of memory pre-
vented any nearer suggestion of the right person. — J. H. H.)

15. Com. : Your experiments seem rather indefinite in character. I doubt
whether one can draw any scientific conclusions from them.

Rec. : Grannis.

(The communicator explains that the question was intended to divert me
in the direction of the colleague in mind in question 9, as this colleague had
remarked to me in presence of sender the sentiment here expressed. But
this incident was not suggested to me, though I thought of the colleague in
the mind of the communicator. But as I knew it was not his day to be at
the college and that it was improbable that he was present, I selected the
next probable person to make this remark, as I had remarked what I
thought a little scepticism in him when present as an observer.— J. H. H.)

16. Com. : Do you still hold the same views regarding Hobhouse and
Sigwart that you did two years ago ?

Rec. : Grannis (?) or Stettheimer.
(The communicator explains that he thought this question would suggest
either Grannis, Marvin, or Jones, who had been students of mine in connec-
tion with this subject, but I could not recall that the first-named person was
in the class at that time, and I knew the last was improbably the originator
of the question because he was present in the room where the messages were
brought ; and the second-named person, though I thought of him, and be
was one of the very few that I could remember as having been in that class,
I decided against, because he had a few minutes before come into the
room and left again. Hence I inferred the first name as pertinent to my
present class on the same subject, and doubtful in reference to the two
years before, and the second name as certainly a member of the earlier
class. I was therefore right in my thought of the three persons actually
intended, but the circumstances mentioned prevented my decision from
being what it might have been. — J. H. H.)

17. Com. : Marvin was misled.
Rec. Grannis.

(This was intended to keep me on the person I named. It represents an
incident in an earlier experiment, when the person named in the message
was misled in thinking that the person I here named was the communicator
when he was not. The real communicator in the present case had been told
it, and was not present when it occurred. He thus concealed himself while
he kept me on another tack than himself. — J. H. H.)

18. Com.: Did you not have a 4 * naive and enthusiastic" student in
Ethics a year ago ?

Rec. : No definite suggestion, unless it is a ruse by Grannis in
reference to practical ethics.

(This was a perfectly definite question intended to suggest a certain
student whom the phrase in quotation marks ought to have recalled, but not

Digitized by

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

603

doing this, I could only follow the preconception established by several
previous messages. If also it had reminded me of the person it was intended
to suggest it would also have indicated the communicator quite probably, as
I had had a few words with him a short time before on a matter connected
with the person in his mind. But here again memory failed and my precon-
ception indicates an interesting source of error that would have been avoided
by a better memory, and the circumstance mentioned would have had
great evidential force. — J. H. H.)

19. Com. : Hays was a high churchman.

Rec. : Grannis, though Marvin could as well be identified with it.
(My answer was given in these terms because I felt that it was extremely
improbable that Marvin should so soon after his experiments with me, when
he had sent this very message to me, repeat it in this way. Hence knowing
that in those experiments he had thought that Grannis was present at my
end of the line, and that no one else but the intermediary in this set, Mr.
McW., knew it, I inferred that the incidents had been told Grannis, and
guessed him on this ground. The communicator explains that Marvin
came in and suggested the message after telling the circumstances, and that
he sent it in order to keep me on the very person that I mentioned. My
identification was, therefore, correct though I reached it in the wrong way.

20. Com. : I heard you lecture on Hypnotism several years ago.
Rec. : No suggestion.

(This is a mixture of true and false, as a diversion and transition to
something more directly pertinent. I never delivered any such lecture as
this message suggested, but I lectured on, or rather discussed hypnotism in
my class, which the sender attended. — J. H. H.)

21. Com. : A year or so before you lectured on the History of Philosophy.
Rec. : Regularly or only on certain occasions ? (Cf. p. 645.)

Com. : Regularly.

(I thought of a course which I gave at Barnard College in this subject,
and of Miss Stettheiiuer as the possible communicator, but 1 knew this was
impossible on reflection, and could only feel wholly uncertain. I afterwards
learned that the communicator had an entirely different course in mind
which I had forgotten for the moment, but which came to me just before
the receipt of the twenty-sixth message, as will be remarked there. It is
worth saying, however, that even if I had recalled the right course, I had
wholly forgotten the presence in the class of the person who turns out to be
the real communicator in the present experiment. The fact was, however,
that the real communicator was not a member of this course, and merely
knew that I gave it and here used the fact as a diversion. — J. H. H.)

22. Com. : You later lectured on Space Perception.

Rec. : No suggestion save that it might be a lady in Barnard College,
who also heard me at Plainfield.
Com. : Guess again.
(The communicator explains that this was not a special incident or
lecture, but simply refers to lectures in my general course, and was used
merely as a general reference to himself preparatory to better identifying
incidents. To me it appeared to mean some specific lecture given to the

—J. H. H.)

604

J. H. Hyslop, PhJ).

[part

public, and having forgotten completely that I had given a course in the
History of Philosophy during the absence of the head of the department, I
naturally interpreted the message, especially from its mode of expression, to
refer to incidents which my reply makes apparent. — J. H. H.)

23. Com. : About three years ago I saw you in the lower part of the city.
Rec. : No suggestion.

(A true incident between myself and sender, and refers, according to
his statement, to the same fact as Question 5. It is sufficiently vague and
indefinite and is designed to test the point at which identification begins.
The next message has the same object, and only narrows the field slightly.
— J. H. H.)

24. Com. : I think it was in the spring.
Rec. : No suggestion.

25. Com. : I once attended a meeting of the S.P.R. at which you were
present.

Rec. : No suggestion.
(True general incident, and not specific or specially important. )

26. Com. : When did you hear from G. P. last ?

Rec. : Marvin. Marvin is also the answer to Question 21.
(This is an interesting question and answer. I at once supposed that
the 44G. P." referred to "George Pelham," the personality referred to in
the last report of Dr. Hodgson, and as I had narrated to the person named
in my answer the full details of my own sittings in which '* G. P." acted
once as amanuensis, and as he knew that I was carrying on the experiments
with Mrs. Piper through Dr. Hodgson, — Dr. Jones, who was all the while in
the room with me, being the only other party that knew the fact, — I at once
felt assured of the identity and so named the person above mentioned. I
felt that this was especially confirmed by the coincidence of this question
with messages 10, 11, and 12. But, as a matter of fact, the communicator
explains that the letters stood in his mind for an acquaintance of mine to
whom I had introduced him during the holidays at the meeting of the
Psychological Association. Consequently, this is another illustration of
mere chance in producing a cumulative case of coincidences in which the
personal identity imagined by me to be strongly indicated is illusory in its
objective interpretation, correct as it may be from my standpoint. But it
in no way represents either the distributive or collective intention of the
communicator as it does the cumulative suggestiveness for the receiver.
This conclusion by myself was also reinforced by the sudden recall to
memory of the fact at this time that I had given a course in the History of
Philosophy in Columbia, and that question 21 referred to this instead of to
the Barnard course, and as Dr. Marvin was a member of this course and
almost the only one that I could remember in it, and certainly the only one
about the institution, with probably the exception of Mr. McW., the inter-
mediary in the experiments, who could be a party to question 21, I at once
saw the pertinence of the question and in connection with this last message
answered with considerable confidence in the identification, especially as
this supposition coincided with the cumulative character of the messages
already mentioned. But its illusory nature has already been remarked. —
J. H. H.)

Digitized by

£1.1.]

Appendix IV.

605

27. Com. : Ph. Im. R. (Cf. G. P. 'a interruptions, pp.211-213.)

Hoc. : If these are intended for the symbols of names in the S. P. R.
Proceedings it is Marvin.

(I learn that as a fact Dr. Marvin happened to come in just after my answer
to question 26 was sent and did suggest this message and intended it as his
own to see if I would identify him. My answer in any case was correct.
But my reason for i* is such that the sending of the message by any
one else would have led to the same identification. There was probably no
other student in the institution who could have given these symbols of the
personalties, Phinuit, Imperator, and Rector. Consequently he must have
been suggested as the originator of the message, whether he were the
immediate sender or not. By this time, of course, I felt tolerably certain
of the main person responsible for the messages as a whole, with reckoning
for diversions. The issue, however, shows that I was wrong. — J. H. H.)

28. Com. : Do you know anything of Grilling ?
Rec. : Franz.

(This was intended by the communicator to turn me on the track of
Professor C. , the same person intended by messages 9 and 15. But, as seen
in my answer, it failed of its purpose, and not only brought a correct answer
as to the real sender, since I remembered only a few days before having
talked with this person about the one named in the message, but it also quite
broke the preconception existing in regard to Dr. Marvin. There was, in
fact, whatever the sender intended, less reason for my supposing Professor
C. either as the sender or as the proper person meant than the one I guessed.
I had not talked to any other person than the one I named for a year or
more about the man named in the message. —J. H. H.)

29. Com. : Do you believe there is much demand for psychologists at the
present time ?

Rec. : Franz.

(The question was a vague one, not referring to any special incident
between us, but my guess or inference was based mainly on its close
consistency with the previous message and the known ambitions of the
person named. It turns out to have been the correct answer, though I had
no assurance of it at the time. — J. H. H.)

30. Com. : You once advised me to accept a newspaper position if I
could get it.

Rec. : No suggestion.
(This was a true incident between the communicator and myself, though
I had no recollection of it. I had made the same recommendation to several
students in the past, but could not recall any one of them to whom it would
apply. The incident was certainly trivial enough. — J. H. H.)

31. Com. : The baby said nothing.
Rec. : Franz quoting C .

i (This sentence was quoted from my message some time before to
Professor C. for my identification, and as Dr Franz was present with
Professor C. as nty assistant, my memory made it certain that the person
named in my answer was responsible for the question ; and it seems to have
occasioned some surprise that my answer came as it did, since the statement
was intended to turn me to Professor C. Had I had the slightest reasc

606

J. H. Hytlop, PhJ).

[part

under the circumstances to suppose that Professor C. was present at the
college, or that he would consent to an experiment of this kind after his
expressed opinion about the experiments, I might have wavered at the
message. But the whole mental situation made this impossible to me, and as
I knew that no other person could know the incident referred to in the
message except the sender, who had been my assistant when it was sent to
Professor 0., I had a clear case of identification with a very strong assur-
ance, and one also that made any other of the persons that I had named in
connection with other messages impossible communicators of this message. —
J. H. H.)

32. Com. : I must leave in a short while. Will return to college Tuesday.
Rec. : C .

(Before receiving any further messages, the next day I wrote the follow-
ing note to Mr. McW., the intermediary, in explanation of my answer to the
question, or rather message : —

"February 10th.

44 My dear McW., — I was in such a hurry yesterday that I failed to say
in regard to the last message that I regarded it as Franz personating C,
instead of C. himself. My answer meant that it pertained to C.

"J. H. H."

It seems that the message was intended to be more effective in diverting
me to the belief that 0. was the communicator, and the receiver had
correctly inferred my state of mind about him, though supposing that it
could be overcome by so direct a message in the first person. The object
was to break up my preconception in favour of the real communicator. He
n reality did not appreciate how conclusive for his identification the
previous message had been.— J. H. H.)

33. Com. : Do you still experiment in binocular vision ?

Rec. : This could be Franz, Marvin, or Grannis, and many others
as well.

(The question was general and my answer was intended to convey that
fact. I should remark, however, that at this stage of the experiment it had
to be resumed by correspondence, as the hour was up and I had to go to a
lecture.— J. H. H.)

34. Com. : Why did you not come up to my home as you promised ?
Rec. : Franz personating C, except that it is possible that McW.
was at my end of the line at the time, which I think was the case. If so,
this is McW.'s question.

(It here occurred to me that McW. himself was probably at my end of
the telegraph when I sent an incident of exactly the same import to Professor
C. for my identification on the same occasion on which I sent the statement
quoted in message 31, and consequently I wavered in my assurance
about the identification in that message. McW. then seemed to be a
possible alternative for both messages, though I had wholly forgotten
whether he was present or not, as surmised here. I knew that both
messages were pertinent to Dr. Franz, while they were possible with McW.
But the communicator intended it to refer to Professor C., but seeing that I
failed to take the bait in this direction, and that I had weakened regarding

Digitized by

ILL]

Appendix IV.

607

himself, Bent the next message purposely, with the aid of McW., to divert
me in another direction. — J. H. H.)

35. Com. : I have been experimenter in at least six of your present series
of experiments on identity.

Rec. : McWhood or Marvin.
(I knew that this message could not be true of the person first
supposed in messages 31, 32 and 34, as he had witnessed only two of the
series, while it was true of the persons named, and if I had felt assured that
the first of the two had been present at the sending of 31 and 34 to Professor
C, this might still more have weakened my preconception that it was Franz.
I knew, however, that this message was not pertinent to him, and whether sent
by the persons named or not was true only of them. I learned after the series
was completed that the message was one of McW.'s intended to divert me to
! either Marvin or himself. Hence both the intention and my identification
were correct. So definite a message or incident was rather a mistake except
on the supposition that the sender was not assured of its inapplicability to
any other persons than those named. — J. H. H.)

36. Com. : I am not yet thirty years old.

Rec. : No suggestion except McWhood or Marvin, though this might
apply to my children and some others !

(Question and answer explain themselves. The message had a definite
purpose, and implied no identifying circumstance. — J. H. H.)

37. Com : My complexion and hair are medium light.

Rec. : Marvin. Would apply to Franz also, but he would not answer
to certain other questions involving unity of personality. If then you intend
me to judge from this unity of questions, Marvin is the only one that will fit.

(This message definitely excluded McW. from the case, as his hair is
black, and I sent my answer with the weaker alternative for Franz for the
reason mentioned in my answer. I had not in my possession the series of
messages, and had to rely on my memory for a cumulative judgment, and as
some of the messages were possible only to Marvin, and others which were
very applicable to Franz might still— so far as I could remember them— be
borrowed diversions, since I knew Franz must be responsible for some of
them, the situation produced a preference in my mind for Marvin. My
answer, however, brought the following note : —

44 Reply to 37 received. I have 38 ready, but before I send it, will you
not please to answer the following question : Whether or not you have
ample reason for your guess 1 Who do yon really think is your questiotier ?

46 When the reply comes I shall send you 38.

44 L. B. McW."

I replied to this as follows, hinting at the necessity for seeing the ques-
tions, many of which 1 had forgotten : —

44 Most probably Marvin ; but not being able to remember the questions
I cannot answer with any confidence. I ought to have the questions, and
perhaps I could decide.1'

44 J. H. Hyslop."

(The questions, however, were not sent to me, evidently because my
answer to Mr. McW. had shown my preference. — J. H. H.)

Digitized by

608

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

88. Com. : Recently you recommended me for a position.
Rec. : Franz.

(This incident was quite specific, and I had no difficulty in identifying its
sender, though the position was not such a one as he aspired to, and might
have been applicable to one other person who had not figured in any of this
set of experiments. The answer was correct, though the assurance was not
complete for the set. — J. H. H.)

39. Com. : You received a note from one of your former students a few
days ago.

Rec. : Franz.

(This incident was also quite specific and pertinent, as it applied to the
person named with scarcely a doubt ; I could say without any doubt, so
far as the memory of the fact that I had received a note from this very
person was concerned, but I felt it possible that a forgotten note from some
other student might stand in the way of assured identification here. I sent
for the questions and after receiving them and examining thein for converging
evidence, could not decide anything except that the balance was for Franz, as
Marvin, though fitting my conception of many of them, would not fit 38 and
39, nor 31 and 34. I did not send this word to the communicator, however,
but waited for the next message. — J. H. H.)

40. Com. : A few days ago we talked of the conditions at W

University.

Rec. : Franz without doubt. This 44 W . ..." is meant for Wooster
University about which we talked.

(This message was intended to bring the experiment to an end, and was
one calculated to make identification assured. The incident was one that
the sender could hardly suppose or expect to be duplicated in the experience
of any one else and was well chosen to identify himself, though it was, of
course, possible that the same fact should be true of others. But as it
happened it was true only of himself, and my answer left the sender as
assured as I was. — J. H. H.)

The following is an experiment of the same general kind as Groups A
and B, except that it was conducted without the telegraph lines, and in more
distinct imitation of the Piper phenomena. The incidents were worked
up on slips of paper and exhibited one at a time to the receiver, as if they
had been telegrams, and his judgment obtained with notes of his remarks
by myself. In this case, however, I aimed at giving a suggestion of the
communicator near the beginning, though first using some incidents that
would keep him out of mind, and help in sustaining a little ambiguity
and incoherence. I obtained most of the incidents from the father, and
worked them up myself with some from my own recollection of his
experience, and shall indicate them before giving the account of the
experiment.

GROUP C.— I.

New York, February ISth, 1899.

XLT.]

Append ix IV.

609

The material given me by the father consisted of the following incidents
in the common life of himself and his son, intended to serve as means of
identification.

Harrison Avenue, Springfield, Mass., was the street on which the office
of the paper for which Mr. G. worked was situated. Union Street in same
city was the place of their residence. Rowing on the Connecticut River
here, Mrs. Aldrich and her kindergarten and daughter Gertrude, an old
playmate of the son when very young.

Robert's Road, the street on which the family lived in Bryn Mawr.
Hannum, the name of the janitor in the Baptist Church there. " Bob,"
the name of an intimate acquaintance there.

*' Lester," the name that the son was called by an acquaintance in New
York.

J. A. Bolles, the name of the editor of the New MUford Gazette, and
called " Ja. Ja," by the son.

Millard Morgan, the name of an intimate friend of the son.

Frank E., name of a relative with the same initials as the father, and
always called simply "Frank E." Van Deusenville, the name of a village
near where "Frank E." lived, and Ives Place, the name of a part of the
estate belonging to the family. Used to go to picnics here.

Charlie, the name of Professor G.'s brother, as he was always called.
Monument Mills, the name of some mills in Housatonic ; Bob Mack, the
name of an intimate acquaintance there ; band concerts attended by father
and son on bicycles ; Rev. Charles A. Mallory, the pastor there.

The incidents which I added on my own account were those in reference
to J. R. G. ; those about the murderer, his trial, capital punishment, the
interview, of which I had been told by Professor G. some years ago, they
being experiences common to him and myself, and I supposed probably to
his son, as events proved was true. Also the terms " anthropogenic " and
* * consciousness of kind. " I also added those about Philadelphia and the
public discussion, for the sake of running the identification down to a
certainty.

The incidents will be found to have been worked up with much inco-
herency and confusion of dates and places. Events that happened at
different places are sometimes mentioned in connection with the same place.
The reason for this will be apparent to all who are familiar with the Piper
phenomena, although I have very much exaggerated this incoherence. My
wish was to see how far the receiver would separate the incidents and
yet stand by the identification of his father, if he supposed him to be
the author of the statements.

Communicator : Professor G . Receiver : Mr. G., his son.

1. Do you remember where we used to live when ray work kept me so
busy ? Tou were a little lad. It was long ago, and in the east, I think. I
often think of it, and wonder whether you delighted in it as much as I did.
Do you remember the man out west with my name, J. R. G. ? He must
have been a relative. Don't you remember our talk about him at
M . . If . . . . d ? I can't get all of it, before we saw him in Ohio. This
was on U .... on S t.

Digitized by Gofosle

610 J. H. Hyslop, PhD. [part

Mr. G. : That J. R. G. is Joshua R. Giddings.

(This recognition was correct, and there was apparently nothing but the
initials and the reference to Ohio to indicate it. But afterward Mr. G. told
me that he had recently been reading his life and that he was a distant
relative. The places abbreviated were not recognised. — J. H. H.)

2. I am going to see you when I can. You ought to remember me well
enough. I was opposed to slavery. J . . sh . . a R. G . . d . . . . ng . . It
is hard to get. If I remember rightly I was in what you call Congress.
We had exciting times about '61. You knew Mrs. Aldrich. What nice
things she used to do for you when you were so young, knee high to a duck,
while I was making speeches in the campaign.

Mr. G. : (Here the name was again recognised, and the statement
made that he was opposed to slavery. Then :) I did know a Mrs. Aldrich
in Springfield, Mass. She had a sort of kindergarten.

3. My special science was not yet much known, though many may think it
ought to have been. But you would not have understood it then. We had
not gotten out of the woods then. Well, things have changed. Do you
remember Gertrude ? Was there anybody by that name ? I think I know
her. Or was it Girtie, Guthrie, or something like that ? That was a big
city then. She was a little girl when I went to interview a roan who was to
be hung for murder. If I remember rightly it was in a town where there
was a college and not far from where we lived. Afterward we moved. I
must have told you about capital punishment.

Mr. G. : I remember Gertrude, Mrs. Aldrich's daughter.

4. I often think of the place and the work. That brute made me less
sentimental. He might have been anthropogenic, but he tried my patience
and that was great. Seventeen miles away I could have been at home.
Boston may be a good place, but it has fewer memories than the town on
the river and the college where the girls were. The boys were not far off.
Do you recall President Sharp ? No, Sharkey ... Is that it ? Will
come again.

Mr. G. : That is President Sharpless. I know his son. They were at
Haverford near Bryn Mawr where we lived. " Anthropogenic " sounds like
father. It is his word. I have heard him talk about capital punishment.

(Allusion to " special science " in previous question. I intended President
Sharpless by 44 President Sharp " and following words. — J. H. H.)

6. Your father would be glad to see you doing well at your work. Do
you still make shoes at that mill by the monuments ? Brother lived there
too. The kindergarten was a fine place, wasn't it ? Wasn't Gertrude there ?
Do you remember the tall houses, sky-scrapers, as we used to call them
where we lived ? Things have changed. This is a strange world here. No
newspapers to write.

Mr. G. : Father was a newspaper man. I don't remember the mill by
the monuments. There is the kindergarten again. The sky-scrapers I know
only in New York.

(The relevance of Gertrude was also recognised again.— J. H. H.)

6. Wait a minute. I am forgetting. Oh ! yes, the river we used to row
on. Slavery ... I am wandering. My mind runs on this subject
still. I wrote on all kinds of subjects and had many interviews. And I

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

611

had to go about very much. You remember we went down to the river to
row together. There was a dam across it further up where there were so
many paper mills. Sharpless ! That's it. He was only a short distance
from us.

Mr. G. : These were the paper mills on the Housatonic, where we go in
the summer. I was born there.

(These were not the mills that I had in mind when 1 wrote the incidents
down. I had those at Holyoke, Mass., in mind, which were near Springfield.
—J. H. H.)

7. Do you recall that murderer whose crime and trial after ten years
made so much noise about the country ? He was tried where there was a
girls' college, not far from home. I went to interview him before he was
hung. The paper was to publish what he was to say. But I got tired of
this work and went to the kind of work that I like, and helped the girls to
learn. It was as good as Mrs. Aid rich's school. But it was not a kinder-
garten.

Mr. G. : I don't remember this murder trial. The incidents would fit
my father. He did go to interview a murderer.

8. Do you remember that trip to Europe ? Those porpoises. They were
fine. Most of it has gone. But I forgot the Baptist Church. Was it
Spurgeon or Hannum that preached ? This was in January. Is that right ?
No. I am thinking of the janitor. It was the parsonage in which we lived.
What a lovely city. They called it . . . near the place . . . love.
Queer name. Did you ever read the 23rd Psalm ?

Mr. G. : Father went to Europe and I remember that he talked about the
porpoises. Hannum is right. He was the janitor at the church in Bryn
Mawr. We lived in the parsonage. [Reference to porpoises mine. — J. H. H.]

9. You were a little fellow when you came to the office. Do you recall
your first pair of trousers ? Was it on Han . . . What's that ? Hasson
shu . . . ave. Let me see. Wait until I am clear. Oh ! close to home.
HAR...NA...ENU...ina field. I am going,
will try again.

Mr. G. : I did often go to father's office in Springfield, Mass. This looks
like Harrison Avenue. But I don't remember the place.

(The word " field " was puzzling for a moment, but in a flash Mr. G. saw
that it was intended for the name of the town, which was correct, namely,
Springfield.— J. H. H.)

10. How good a thing it is and well
For brethren in unity to dwell.
That's the name of the town near where we lived. This was afterward.
Where was it ? You remember the girls' school, where we made brain, not
brawn. Some of it sounds like this : Robert ! Who is Robert ? Oh !
^ Robert's . . . What's the rest ? Is it Road ? Yes, yes. Was this in
Mass. ?

Mr. G. : This is Robert's Road, where we lived in Bryn Mawr. Oh ! that
means Philadelphia, only ten miles from Bryn Mawr.

(Here Mr. G. put together this and the eighth question and with the
manner of an interesting discovery and assured belief mentioned the nam
of Philadelphia, which was correct. — J. H. H.)

Digitized by GQOgle

612

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

[Short Beach, Conn., August 2nd, 1809.

I learned incidentally a day or two ago of an interesting mistake made
by myself in this allusion to the 23rd Psalm. The mistake is precisely like
those so often made by communicators in the Piper sittings. I had intended
the reader to suppose from my quotation about brethren living in unity that
I was quoting the 23rd Psalm mentioned in a previous question. Now, a
few days ago, I had occasion to mention the same sentence : " How good
a thing it is for brethren in unity to dwell," and referred it to the 23rd
Psalm, as usual, and as in Question 8. But I was laughed at by my wife and
a friend with her. I insisted and felt quite confident that I was right, but
they were not to be convinced, and reasserted that I was in error. But I
would not yield until I took a concordance and found the passage in the
first terse of the 183rd Psalm. 1 shall certainly have to be charitable to
"spirits" when they commit similar mistakes, especially when we recall
the fact that the 23rd Psalm was a favourite one in the family, very often
sung at family worship, and more often recited on Sundays, while the
133rd was very often mentioned and recited as a moral lesson to children
who frequently had their differences that the sentiment in this Psalm was
intended to prevent.— J. H. H.] (Cf. pp. 228-231.)

11. You used often when small to come to the office. I saw you there,
and I think mother will recall it Do you ? H . . R . . . . SON . . V . .
NUE. Wasn't Gertrude there ? Where is " Bob " ? He is a good fellow.
I know how you like him. Where is that street ? A man in your class has
the name of it.

Mr. G. : That must be Harrison Avenue, because there is a man by that
name in my class, but I don't remember it. I know " Bob " well.

12. Is it that Baptist sexton ? Sounds like Mark Hanna. Is that
right ? He lived in the same town as . . . Thomas, who was very
bright. I knew it. You knew " Bob " there, I remember. We did better
afterwards, and I had more time to write. I must get that name. It . . .
Thomas. Can't get it right. There was a . . . Rhodes there, too.
He died, and . . . Thomas is still living.

Mr. G. : There was a man by the name of Rhodes, the president of Bryn
Mawr College, where we were. I did not know of his death. Thomas I
don't know. Oh, yes ; it might be Miss Thomas, the Dean at Bryn Mawr.

(The reference to the Baptist sexton was correctly interpreted as an
allusion to " Hannum." — J. H. H.)

13. Do you remember who called you Lester? Where is that gazette our
boarder worked for ? Was it on Union-street ? Ja. Ja. . . . I don't
hear. Bones . . . Bowl . . . What's that? Sounds like Bonus.
Don't you remember Ja ? I knew him and mother. That ought to prove
who your father is. And somebody else, too.

Mr. G. : When we came to New York, there was a fellow who always
called me " Lester," without any reason that I could give, as that was not
my name. That " Ja. Ja. " refers to John A. Bolles. I used to call an
imaginary being " Ja. Ja." in my play, and I called Mr. Bolles this because
of his initials, " J. A." We did live on Union-street, Springfield.

14. Where is that book I wrote ? I am thinking of it. Where is brother
Charlie now ? Oh ! those mills. It was not at MUford. Do you remember

xll]

Appendix IV.

613

the band concerts ? We had to have bicycles then. Was Frank E. at any of
those farm picnics ? Was that the name ? Sounds like a baker's dozen.

Mr. G. : Charlie was my father's brother. This might be written of last
summer. All of it is as if it were from my father. Frank E. is a distant
cousin of mine by the name of G . He was a farmer there.

(Mr. G. here referred to all the past questions with the remark that the
whole of them would fit his father, except those alluding to J. R. G. This
was correct, as I bad used that name for diversion. 44 Baker's dozen " a bad
pun for Van Deusenville. — J. H. H.)

15. I forget a good many things. Only a few come back. But I
remember Ives Place and Millard Morgan. Now I am thinking of that place
where the girls went to school. Was it Smith College ? This was near the
Connecticut River where we used to row together. Those were fine times.
No, it wasn't there I taught the girls. What's that ? Are you saying
anything about a kind of consciousness ? He says ... of kind.

Mr. G. : I know Ives Place, but I cannot recall where it is. I know
Millard Morgan well. He was in college last year. I have rowed on the
Connecticut. We lived one summer in Northampton. That phrase "kind
of consciousness " if turned around is a pet phrase of father's. Yes, there
it is in the next sentence (Cf. pp. 544-646.)

16. How's a tonic in mass? Sounds like this. Did you say mass? Who's
soul? Wait a minute. Tell Charlie he will be glad to know I am still living.
Where is Bob Mack ? That's the one I think. It is hard to speak in these
conditions. Some one is saying Milford Gazette. Ja. Ja. He can't stay.

Mr. G. : 44 How's a tonic," that's Housa tonic, the name of the place
where we lived. Bob Mack is a man in this place. He was a friend of father
and of his brother Charlie.

(The recognition of J. A. Bolles was made again and his connection with
the gazette mentioned, and the town corrected to New Milford. — J. H. H.)

17. What did I say about the college ? I forget the name of it just now.
It has large columns in it, and I said much about consciousness in it. There
are girls there too. First it was where there were only girls. Do you
remember the Monument Mills? Charlie was there. Who was the

pastor? Mai M..1 MALLOWS. Was it Marsh ? No ;

same name as Charlie. Wait ; he'll get it. C H A . . . . L E . . A. M . . . .
LORY. That's it as I get it.

Mr. G. : There, 44 consciousness" ! It must be my father. I recognise
Charles A. Mallory. He married father and mother.

(Some further remarks were made about the 44 consciousness of kind,"
which was the pet phrase of his father in sociological discussions. — J. H. H.)

18. Who says Bryn Mawr and Rhode . . What's the road ? I

am muddled a little. The newspaper office was at the first place. Do you
remember the curve in the railway track near the bridge over the river ?
We moved to this new place. Oh, yes ! that's Hannum I was trying to think
of a little while ago. I told you so. I got it wrong about Mark Hanna.
I am clearer now. I think I can prove your father even if I do get muddled.
But 1 shall soon be all right.

Mr. G. : There was a curve in the railway at Van Deusenville, near
Housa tonic.

614

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

(I had intended this curve to refer to the one in Springfield, Mass. All
the other incidents were correctly indicated and recognised. — J. H. H.)

19. Do you remember my book ? I liked social problems. But they
forced me to cross swords with Carl Schurz. There was another man too.
What was his name ? His people used to live in Judaea. He is a kind of
preacher. This all comes of studying society. Was Van .... Van Dew . . .

Van sen. Van Deussen there ? The newspapers talked about it.

This makes me think of Harrison Ave. Mother will remember that, and
you too.

Mr. G. : That's father, I know. Were you at that discussion? The
other man was F A .

20. I said Housatonic. That has nothing to do with saying mass, unless
you live there. Do you remember any picnics ? After all, teaching boys and
girls is better than farming, though it is fine work for a summer vacation.

Mr. G. : Yes, I have been at lots of picnics. That's father, 1 know, we
spent the summers there. All of it applies to him.

There are a number of matters of interest in the results of this
experiment. The first one to be noted is that which is characteristic
of the whole series, — the trivial nature of the incidents chosen for the
purpose of identification. In the case of Professor G., it is especially
interesting to remark that the feature that perhaps ought to have been
chosen — on the supposition that men would choose what is uppermost
and most important in their minds — was not suggested to his mind
at all. What bears upon that was selected by myself, namely, the
evidential terms and incidents in connection with the author's writings.
These are represented in the words " anthropogenic " and "conscious-
ness of kind." All the facts chosen by the communicator were of the
unimportant kind that are objected to in the Piper phenomena.

It was a matter of much surprise to me that the receiver inferred
so quickly the name for which J. R. G. stood. His remark afterwards
sufficiently explained that, however. But it was what I wanted to have
come in the second question, as a means of diversion from the immediate
suggestion of his father, who was nevertheless represented in the more
general statements about the place of living. The preconception thus
established did its work in forcing Mr. G. to interpret the incidents
with reference to their identity and relation in tiuie and place. He
made no mistake in this where any spontaneous mention was made,
in spite of the incoherences involved. Even the slightest incidents
in a setting of the most remote connection, did not fail to be observed
and properly placed. All the names of persons were correctly recog-
nised and located, and the same is true of places, with the exception
at first of some which were not fully spelt out and whose form did not
at once suggest their purpose, the receiver not being familiar with the
Piper reports in this respect.

XLl.]

Appendix IV.

615

There was no expressed suspicion that the communicator was his
father until we came to the third question, and here the term " anthro-
pogenic " was seized at once and with assurance that the father was
connected with the experiment. This was not only true, but I
deliberately chose the term and threw it in here with a mass of very
general incidents of little suggestive power, in order to see whether it
would appear as evidential, or even suggestive at all. The success was
very striking, and I may say that the evidential nature of it is apparent
from the fact that the term is not a common one with writers generally,
but a technical word often used in the father's book. It was the
recognition that the term was one of his father's peculiar words, and
the unlikeliness of any one else using it that stamped the receiver's
conviction with some assurance, and tended to break up the precon-
ception established by the first identification. I did not expect so
ready an identification of President Sharpless. But this success at
once suggested Bryn Mawr and then at once the false implication
that the river referred to was at that place, which was the discrepancy
intended. The receiver also recognised the reference of the first sen-
tence in this fourth question to the last sentence in the previous
question, referring to the murderer indicated.

There were two errors of judgment as viewed from the stand-
point of the communicator. They were, first, the identification of
the dam and paper mills alluded to as those on the Housatonic, when
those at Holyoke on the Connecticut were intended, and the suggestion
of the railway curve at Van Deusenville when that at Springfield was
intended. They indicate that what may be supposed to be specific and
peculiar may in reality often be common enough to lack all evidential
force whatsoever.

Not less interesting was the identification of the city of Phila-
delphia from the vaguest metaphorical allusion to it. From its
Quaker origin it has been called " the city of brotherly love," and in
question 8, 1 had suggested it in too vague a way to secure a guess, but
in question 10 the quotation from the 133rd Psalm and the idea
expressed by it suggested the right city with a startled expression of
discovery. In this latter question the error of putting the town
suggested by " Robert's Road," in Massachusetts, was at once noted,
though this may be considered quite easy, in spite of some incoherence
of statement.

The failure to remember Harrison Avenue was very interesting,
because the father had felt perfectly assured that this would be
remembered. The quick identification of Mr. Bolles was also striking,
because the suggestion was slight.

When we came to question 14, the receiver became tolerably assured
that the messages were from his father, and spontaneously remarked

616 H. Hyslop, Ph.D. [»»art

the camulative nature of the evidence, now observing that much
which previously had not suggested his father was meant to do so.
And in the fifteenth question the recognition of " consciousness of
kind " from a distorted suggestion of it was quick and sagacious, it
being in this situation intended as a remote suggestion, and for this
purpose readily seen It very much strengthened Mr. G.'s feeling that
he was dealing with his father's messages.

But it was very strange that Ives Place was not at once recognised,
but wholly forgotten. This was another instance of a place that the
father supposed would be recognised immediately and without fail.
But it was only near the close of the experiment that it came to the
receiver's memory, and then only in connection with the name of a
place near it. That this part of the estate should be so readily
forgotten, and other minor incidents recalled with so little effort, only
illustrates the misunderstandings that may easily occur in all such
attempts at identification. The last two incidents, however, were
effective in securing assurance beyond the possibility of cavil and

doubt, as they were intended to do. The allusion to Mr. F

A in the way it was made was remarked as evidence of the

correctness of the inference. I had referred to Judaea as if failing to
recall the name of the race to which Mr. A. belonged. This was
remarked as evidence that the name suggested by the occasion referred
to was correct, and that the incident must come from his father, or
be meant to identify him with the experiment.

Note A. — Addendum.

GROUP C— II.

New York, December 9th, 1899.

Communicator : Miss M. Receiver : Miss B. (December 5th, 1899.)

Inasmuch as the area of guessing was limited, as remarked, to a narrow
field in my other experiments, I resolved to try a case in which no such
limitations could exist. The receivers in all the others could safely act on
the assumption that the communicator was most likely connected with the
college, and thus it would be supposed that the correct identification would
be easier. In the present experiment this objection is eliminated. The
communicator was a lady in this city and the receiver one hundred and fifty
miles from this place. It was conducted in the same manner as Experiment I.,
Group C. The results show that the identification was not interfered with
on this account, though the tendency of the receiver to limit her guessing at
first to the locality in which she lived justifies the suspicion which one must
naturally entertain against guessing under the circumstances described in

Digitized by

XIX]

Appendix IV.

617

ray experiments. But objection of this sort is much weakened by the fact
that in this last experiment it was the intention of the communicator to
suggest the persons actually guessed by the receiver in her own locality.

The most interesting incident in the experiment was the correct answer
to Question 7, and the spontaneous reconstruction of the facts in the
mind of the sender with the cumulative inductive reasoning based upon the
previous messages. The process at once broke up the previous precon-
ceptions and established a new apperception mass which made many
of the subsequent messages superfluous. The reader can determine for
himself the interesting and instructive character of the guess, together with
the later confirmations of it. The name Ross had no more special connec-
tion with this ride than with hundreds of other experiences with the same
person in the same town. All the other guesses are but illustrations of the
general nature and purport of these experiments.

The experiments in group B, and also messages leading to incidental
identification, show how easy it is to personate the identity of others
than the communicator, though this process is largely limited to such
identification as can be indicated by mere incidents rather than distinctive per-
sonal traits and is likely to develop traces of the identity of the real communi-
cator. In experiment I, group B, I successfully personated two different
persons merely by indicating facts which pertained to their identity and not
mine. It would not be so easy to reproduce the little tricks of language and
phrase of another, or various aspects of character difficult of imitation except
after long acquaintance ; nor would it be easy to reproduce the psychological
traits of another, though perhaps possible under favourable circumstances.
The complex incidents representing the unity of consciousness in the iden-
tity or personality of the Piper communicators are more natural to a real
surviving person than to some one trying to personate them, and it is only
a most intimate acquaintance or an amanuensis that can come near to repro-
ducing phenomena of this sort. But from my personation of two persons to
the extent of convincing the receiver that they were .actually present (p.
596) we can understand the part played by Phinuit in the Piper case, or
by any "control." Nor is it any objection that such personation is possible,
as it is apparent in the experiments that the communicator must know the
facts and the person they represent sufficiently to make the personation suc-
cessful. This will be true on any theory of the matter, and in cases where
we have to suppose telepathy in opposition to spiritism to account for the
acquisition of the facts, the only question that can be raised is whether the
telepathy can be adequately selective for the purpose.

The same secrecy was maintained as in previous experiments, and I also
arranged it so that it was not known that it was I who was conducting the
experiment. I prepared the questions after securing the incidents from Miss
M., and sent them to a friend who understood the object of the experiment,
and he conducted it as if it were his own. The results are precisely like the
others. I alter names in all cases calculated to discover identity. In mak ing up
my ''messages" I endeavoured to imitate the confusion of the Piper pheno-
mena, and so did not try to keep incidents independent of each other, as «-
comparison of the " messages " with the incidents out of which I constrr
them will make apparent. The following are the incidents, obtained

618

J. H. Hyalop, Ph.D.

[part

Miss M., and upon which I proceeded. In the construction of the case I
went from the more general to the more specific, in order, as before, to study
the point where identification began.

A walk on Pine-street (very common with all students). Miss B. telling
Miss M.'s hand in Mrs. Jones' parlor with Miss M.'s sister present. Miss
M's difficulties in gymnastic exercises, especially with the backward bend.
Drinking Russian tea with Miss C. in the spring at Miss Park's. Meeting
Mr. Hasktns on a certain Sunday in Miss C.'s room. Taking the picture of
Miss C. and Virginia Vales, near the Putnam House under a lilac bush.
The runaway on Holyoke mountain. Miss Judson and Miss C.'s sister in a
buggy in front of the running horse ; Miss ft, Miss M., and Miss M.'s
sister in the runaway buggy. A call by Miss M. on Miss C. just before
taking the picture mentioned, and asked by Miss C. where she was going to
spend the summer. A talk with Miss 0. by Miss M. about basket ball,
Miss 0. making the rules for it, and a request for Miss M. to write an article
about gymnastics for one of the leading periodicals. The party in the run-
away had gathered some columbines, and when the runaway began Miss M.
cautiously put them down on the floor of the buggy and helped her sister
hold the reins.

Incident of Miss C. telling Miss M. about her life in m Boston, and her
studies and physical training there. Read Betty Parr's poems to Miss
M.'s sister, and showed the day's order to the sister. Miss M., Miss ft,
and Miss M.'s sister together put out of a certain place on the night
of the promenade and after eleven o'clock. Listening to a talk on self-
sacrifice a year ago after the promenade. Miss M. present, when Miss ft
received some photographs from her brother. A long wait to shake hands
with the president after the reception of last June.

These incidents were worked up into the following " messages," with as
much confusion and mistake as the necessities of the case required. The
remarks of the receiver were noted by my friend, and are embodied in the
account as in the other experiments. I have only to observe that Miss B.
was told only that the guessing "was an experiment in the psychology of
guessing, having a bearing on the subject of mediumistic communication,
and that the incidents had been furnished by a friend. Further than that
she was told nothing till the experiment was over."

1. Com. : Do you remember our walk together ? It was down towards
the river. What was the street ? Oh, yes, Pine-street. That was a
favourite place for the girls.

Ilea : Nothing. A favourite walk. Have some idea of the person,
but not from the question (message)

2. Com. : I had so much trouble with my gymnastics. Do you remem-
ber the backward bend ? That was enough to break one's back. But you
helped me until I did it not so badly.

Rec. : No idea. Puts me off* the track (referring to the suggestion
that came to her in reading 1).

3. Com. : Do you remember the photographs your brother sent you ? I
knew of it, and how you were delighted with them. I have not seen you

Appendix IV.

619

for some time, and wish I could step in a moment and surprise you as these
questions ought to do. Pine-street and Mrs. Jones.

Rec. : Suggests another person. Falls in better with 2 tlian the
person suggested while reading 1. It might be Miss Judson.

4. Com. : Say that again. A e. No, try once more. What

kind of ground ? Help a fellow out. Dear old Tom. No, it wasn't this.
It was on the other side. Oh, the house on top. Gone.

Rec. : Absolutely off. Suits neither of the two persons already
thought of.

5. Com. : I forgot to go on. It was in Mrs. Jones' parlor. Now I know.
M . . . 8 J . . . . d . . n. What's that? She was there. Yes, yes, my
sister. Something about my fortune. All in your hands. Better
say head.

Rec. : Suggests the coming of my sister seven years ago last spring.
44 Miss Judson." [I use the quotation marks to indicate the reading of a
word partly given in the 44 message. "]

[The reading of this broken word was correct. I had intended it for
Miss Judson.— J. H. H.]

6. Com. : Do you remember that cup of tea ? Spring, I think. Say it
again. I am sure it was. Did you say Park ? That's it, Russian Park.
No, no, the tea. That's not gymnastics. The tea, the tea. You and ....
and I your studies in Bo Wait a minute.

Rec. : 4 4 Boston."

[This was the correct guess for 4 4 Bo ," and is interesting for

the reasons that evidently influenced the receiver's mind in it. She had
naturally a better memory of where she had prosecuted her studies than the
incidents of drinking tea on a certain occasion. It is also interesting as
showing that the communicator cannot expect everybody to remember as
distinctly the incidents by which he would identify himself. The incident
in this message was far more specific than the remark about the 44 studies
in Bo . . . . ; " but in spite of this it had evidently little suggestive
power.— J. H. H.]

7. Com. : The columbines on M hollyhock. How careful

I was .... the rains no, try again, r .... ns ... . tight. My,

what a fright ! Two ahead of us. Sister and .... ss .. or .... n. You
thought of Ross.

Rec. : Oh, wasn't it Miss Judson ? I think it was. I remember this
ride perfectly. 44 Mount Holyoke," *4 with the reins." I remember the
incident perfectly. Rachel [sister of Miss C] and Miss Judson were in the
carriage in front. They went quickly and made us go quickly too. I was
with Miss. M. Oh, I've got Alice in No. 4. It may be Alice M. [Miss C.
here reviews the previous 44 messages " as follows]. 1 and 2 suggest Alice,
3 might be she. I think it is she. 4 I can't make out any more than before,
except that Tom must be Mt. Tom. 5 can't remember. 7 might be Alice's
sister that was with us. Miss Judson. Miss Ross.

[This is a very remarkable guess all the way through and is correct in
every detail. I, of course, intended Miss Alice M. to be the person whose
identity was to be determined, but I had included her sister in th«

Digitized by

620

J. H. Hyslop, Pk.D.

[PAKT

" message," and the others somewhat as a foil against too great confidence
at this stage Any one of them might have sent the 44 message," and the
only clue to Miss M. was the first person of the pronoun, and even that was
hidden in an equivocal and broken sentence, so that it might be taken as
denoting the care of the sister in holding the reins rather than Miss M. 'a
care in putting down the columbines. But the extremely indefinite nature
of the * 4 message," with hardly even a fair hint of the ride intended, makes
the constructive interpretation one of the most remarkable things we can
imagine, considering the disposition of some of us to attribute the liability
to illusion in far more specific and definite incidents in the Piper case. The
sudden inclination, as if by inspiration, to study the previous questions for
cumulative evidence, and the correct judgment regarding their pertinence
for Miss M., are most interesting as illustrating how slight the clue may be
for correct identification, and how correct the * 4 sitter" may be in con-
structing the true meaning of the communicator out of the most broken
and confusing messages. The facts are these. The party had gathered
some columbines for Miss Ross on Mt. Holyoke, and on the way home the
runaway occurred. Miss M. carefully laid the flowers down in the buggy
and took hold of the lines or reins to help her sister check the running
horse. Miss Judson and Miss C 's sister were in the carriage ahead, and
Miss C. had all her solicitude for Miss Ross. How little of this is told in
the 44 message " is very apparent. It is also the first 44 message " in which
the slightest allusion to it occurs. The correct interpretation and construc-
tion of it, therefore, becomes little less than amazing, and added to this is
the very slight clue to the name Alice given in 44 message " 4. The experi-
ment might have been stopped at this point but for the fact that, although
the guess was right both in regard to person and incidents intended, I had
shaped the situation so that there was no proof that Miss M. was the only
person who, in spite of the first person of the pronoun, might have sent the
44 messages. "—J. H. H.]

8. Com. : Do you remember my meeting Who was

it I Say it now. M . . . . MIS Speak clearly. M . . i

H....k....s. What happened ? Oh, it was on a Sunday. You know
who I mean.

Rec. : 44 Mr. Haskins." This certain person meets Mr. Haskins. 1
am still not sure that Alice is right. Was it a Sunday, in the Percy House,
when I asked four or five girls to meet Mr. Haskins ?

[The construction of the name 44 Haskins " was correct, and it was also
intended that the case should remain equivocal, as another person was con-
cerned in the meeting. — J. H. H.] ^

9. Com. : Yes, yes, I forgot the ride. Those columbines, you know.

Come. She held the reins. Your sister and

J . . ds . . n. They rode ahead.

Rec. : Evidently my sister and Miss Judson did ride ahead. [She was
not positive about this before.] Refers to the same ride. The first dots
must mean Miss Judson or Alice's sister who held the reins in our carriage.
44 Miss Judson." i

[I had intended this 44 message" to suggest the ride, not having thought
that the first allusion in such vague terms would indicate it. Hence the

XLI.]

Appendix IV.

621

present one merely confirms the guess made in 7. Miss 0. was correct in
regard to the person holding the reins. — J. H. H.]

10. Com. : Do you remember talking about Betty Parr and the day
order ?

This is the main thing one recalls. She is near me. A

F Wait, be patient. Al w. Sounds like

no, she's gone. I caught it all but the last. Alles, but it wasn't

German.

Rec : How idiotic. "Alice M." " Alice M." [Significance of " Alles"
not guessed.]

[The guess is correct and it is evident that the receiver becomes more
confident of this correctness, as the answer to the next " message " which
follows makes clear.— J. H. H.]

11. Com. : In the fall, when the mellow ground awaits the stealing on of
the frost, what a jolly time we girls had. You have mountain day yet, I
suppose. I never see or feel this freedom. I am shut up among the mul-
titude, and can only think, and think how fine it would be to have a ride

again on Hollyhock What's that ? The mountain, I said. Only we

must not run away with Miss Ross.

Rec. : Am quite sure of the person now.
[The word "mellow " is a play < n the name of the communicator Miss M.,
and she is at present in New York, so that the general allusion to her being
in the multitude was intended to turn the guessing away from the others
included in "message " 7. It was successful, more so than I had expected,
and I might have stopped with the next "message " with all the certitude
that is necessary could I have anticipated the result as it is. — J. H. H.]

12. Com. : You told my hand. You know where that was. King Street,
wasn't it ? If I remember rightly one of the ladies in the buggy in front
of us was there. She will recall me.

Rec. : Alice told my hand, not I hers, except perhaps in fun, when
she told mine. Alice's sister, Miss Ross, and myself were there. Per Mrs.
and two or three others.

[Reference to the incidents from which I worked up this "message " will
show that I had deliberately reversed the order of "telling the hand," with
the purpose of putting a mistake of memory in the mouth of the commu-
nicator. The receiver, it will be noticed, makes the proper correction, and
allows for an illusion of memory in heraelf as possible. — J. H. H ]

13. Com. : What did we do after the prom, last June ? Remember the
door. It would have taken some gymnastics to get in. Oh, yes, I forgot
the Russian tea at Miss Park's. That's it. But it has nothing to do with
the prom. I was just thinking of being shut out after 11 o'clock when I
all at once recalled the tea.

Rec. : Refers to Miss Park's tea in 6. I thought of Miss Park
when I saw that.

[Miss G. either did not catch the meaning of the allusion to the
"prom." or there were reasons for not indicating what it meant. The
allusion in No. 18 rather intimates uncertainty regarding the incident here,
or even no consciousness of it at all, though I had intended it to be so

Digitized by

622

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

specific as not to fail of bringing the guessing down to two persons, exclud-
ing all others. — J. H. H.]

14. Com. : To whom did you talk basket ball, making the rules, and
whom did you wish to write about gymnastics ? Maybe it was some one
else.

Rec. : Miss M.

[The talk about basket ball was with Miss M.'s sister, but it was Miss M.
herself who was asked to write about gymnastics, and as this is the point of
interest in the "message" after the previous ones the answer may be con-
sidered correct, and perhaps the talk about basket ball is forgotten or
mistaken for a talk with Miss M. herself.— J. H. H.]

15. Com. : Now I have the name. Has Hasn't. No, spell

it. H . . S K . . . S K N S. Go out and come with it again.

Rec. : "Haskins," of course.
[This 4 'message" was intended to make sure of what might fail in
No. 8. The object was to increase the chances of correct guessing as the
experiment advanced. The next "message" has the same object. —
J. H. H.]

16. Com. : Sunday in your room. It was in the afternoou. HACKINS.

M No, it was a man. H A S K . . . . S. I met him

there.

Rec. : Ditto. (That is " Haskins.")
[There was, of course, no chance of mistaking the meaning of the name
in this case if it failed before, but no mention is made of the person whom
it was intended to suggest. Put the use of the pronoun " she " in the reply
to the next "message" shows that Miss M. was evidently in mind.—
J. H. H.]

17. Com. : Do you remember the Virginie vales ? Wasn't that it ?

Hard to catch lady Oh yes, she was there. I took

your picture. ALLES L....8.

Rec. : Don't see what she means by " Virginie vales." Yes, Alice
was here last June, and she took Virginia Vales' picture and mine.
"Alice M." [I did not notice at the time that no notice was taken by
Miss C. of the "lady" in this number.]

[The guess is correct throughout in this case. Both names are rightly
indicated, and it is probable that the word " lady" was the clue to the right
interpretation of "Virginia Vales." — J. H. H.]

18. Com. : Remember the talk What's that ?

.... self ....... after the Prom self fice.

Only a year ago.

Rec. : What is she talking about Prom ? Don't remember that she
w:is here at the Prom, — unless she means the June promenade. Yes, there
were Alice and I and two men from Amherst. Don't remember the subject,
but the conversation was interesting and serious.

[The right guess is made here and the identity is narrowed down to the
correct person, but it is interesting to remark that Miss M. gave me the
incident of the talk about self-sacrifice as one which could not mistake her
identity. It was regarded by her and her sister as the most specific of all of

Digitized by Google

XL1.]

Appendix IV.

623

them. But Miss C. does not remember this feature of the occasion, while
she does other incidents of it that Miss M. mentioned to me, but which I
have not put into the "message." — J. H. H.]

19. Com. : How long did we wait ? Speak

clearly wait to shake hands with PRES

NTT N s.

Rec. : We were going, and Alice said we'd better wait and shake
hands with President Tompkins at the reception in June.

[This question was intended to draw the experiment to a close by
making the intended incident clear beyond doubt, and the name was very
thinly disguised. The right construction is put on it.— J. H. H.]

20. Com. : I took your picture under the lilac bush near the PU T . . . .
M H . . U S E. I called on you just before and you asked me where I was
going for the summer. Now I have it. The talk was about self-sacrifice.
That runaway came nearly being that of another kind. Miss Ross will

remember. A L K. M Gone.

Rec. : Don't recall now that that was the subject of the talk. " Alice
K. M." [Miss C. probably did'nt think it worth while to give Putnam
House. And, of course, there was no particular point in the thin veiling of
such names as Miss Judson, President Tompkins, and Mr. Haskins, an old
friend of hers.]

[This reply explains itself and so doea the purpose of the "message."
The certitude wanted was actually reached in No. 11, and there is no reason,
but the completion of the record, for going farther, except to discover the
discrepancies of memory between communicator and receiver I had in
mind, too, the more thinly disguised names of other persons than the com-
municator, as this is often a feature of the Piper case. But it is worth
remarking that the identification is accomplished here, as usual before the
name of the communicator appears to give any definite clue, and at no time
is it clearly given. Incidents alone are sufficient for the purpose of identifi-
cation.— J. H. H.]

Digitized by

624

J. H. Hyslop, Pk.D.

[part

APPENDIX V.

Experiments in Communication.

The allusions by some of the " communicators " in the Piper
experiments and their difficulties in giving proper names, suggested to
me the propriety of instituting certain experiments more or less in
imitation of these imaginary conditions to see whether the result would
in any way confirm our conception of the case. I had in view, of
course, the illustration of other points at the same time, namely,
phonetic errors which might grow out of resemblances in sounds of
different words with different apperception points, or the existence of
none at all in the receiver. Hence, 1 undertook to try communication
of certain messages through a speaking tube from ray kitchen to my
library, containing frequent use of proper names and words singly
or combined that resembled in sound words with very different mean-
ings. I shall comment on the results after giving them. But I had
first to test for the conditions that would insure somo indistinctness in
the communications. Hence, I placed my subject, an assistant in my
work, at the end of the tube in the library, and at such a distance from
it as made talking into it not very clear. I tried at first six inches
distance, while I held my mouth while speaking about four or six inches
from the other end which was not more than ten feet distant, though
separated from the receiver by the floor. The two bends in the tube,
itself about an inch in diameter, were the only obstacles to the trans-
mission of the sound. But I soon found that the receiver was too near
the tube, and my voice too loud to make the necessary indistinctness
in the case. I altered these conditions until there was difficulty in
hearing the sounds or words. The receiver held his ear about eighteen
inches from the tube, I, my mouth about six inches from the other end,
and I spoke in an ordinary conversational tone, though very slowly,
and with as clear articulation as possible, the object being in speaking
slowly, to permit the receiver to take down the words as they were
uttered. When I had secured the conditions for indistinctness I began
the experiments whose results were as follows. I have arranged the
passages that I read or spoke in one column, and the same as received
in another, so as to facilitate comparison. They will almost speak for
themselves, and anyone familiar with the Piper phenomena will
discover at once the resemblances to them in these results.

We require, however, to be cautious about mistaking the nature
of these experiments. They do not prove the facts which they

XLI.]

Appendix V.

625

illustrate. We do not know that the conditions of spirit communi-
cation, if such exist, have any resemblance to those which I have
described in these experiments. At the utmost these results only
illustrate the case from the standpoint of the narrators' statements
regarding the analogies between communication from a transcendental
world, and the same under conditions that we know. Hence, it must
not be supposed that I am proving anything in favour of either spirit
communication in general, or the difficulties of it in particular. All
that I can be supposed to have done is to have suggested a tield for
a very large system of experiments to establish the relation between
the communication of familiar and unfamiliar sounds under the
conditions indicated, and the difficulty of getting proper names in like
conditions. The experiments can be varied in a thousand ways, and
many points in apperception illustrated and determined. In so far as
they bear upon the Piper case, my results can be taken for mere illus-
trations of what may be natural in accepting the analogies which the
communicators indicate between the conditions under which they
communicate, and those which the language suggests. The confirma-
tion of the peculiarities of the Piper phenomena does not carry with it
any evidence of either their genuineness or their significance, but only
suggests the limits of our knowledge in the case, while it intimates
what may be true if we could only ascertain the nature of the alleged
communications, and the conditions under which they occur. This may
be the case on any theory whatsoever, and I do not care to limit the
possibilities to the spirit theory alone, though I suspect that we should
most naturally conceive their superior pertinence to that hypothesis as
compared with the telepathic.

Communicator. Receiver.

1. From Woodstock the Commis- 1

sioners removed unto Euelme and .... some

some of them returned to Woodstock

Sunday.

2. Do you remember Jemmie 2. Do you remember James Row-

Rocheliffe and his tableau in the cliff, and his in . . .

windlass horse and how he didn't horse and how he the

find the climb at the mountain side

very agreeable ?

3. Do you know, prithee, Jennie 3. Do you know

Cawell, Callwell, Cowell, Cauldwell, .... who sang

Coehill who sang ditties in the pre- presidential connection . . . .

sidential election and was put out of . . was . . . of . .

the United Presbyterian Church in United Presbyterian Church
consequence.

Digitized by

626

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

4. Mr. Wildrake says his son
Everard will not come yet, but is
good for a long stay with his damaged
business.

5. Tomkins had met Kerneguy at
Bristol and said he tried Joceline
Joliffe until he could not move for
a while. Wennie Budge, a little
crone of his master, thought he was
to call for Phoebe Mayflower, and
bring Lodge with him to the table
d'Mte.

4 says

• . not come

. . . business

5. Tompkins has met Carnegie
Argu-
ment a

a while but he

was too and

when not

6. Striking frank

6. Striking Arthur's shoulder with

the frank bluntness of a mountaineer, of

he said aloud: 4 * Yonder bolt of find
Ernest whistled through the air like
a falcon when she stoops down the
wind ! " And then proceeded in a

low deep, voice, * 4 You merchants sell turnips.

gloves — do you ever deal in single
gauntlets, or only in pairs." (Scott1 s
Woodstock.)

. . when

she stoops and

then proceeds in

order, Do merchants sell . . .

7. Night

change and
. . . . first
, . . who .

and .
out to

. and .
not now

stir

nor look

7. This night, both strange and
differing noise from the former, first
wakened Captain Hart, who lodged
in the bed-chamber, who, hearing
Roe and Brown to groan, called out
to Cockaine and Crook to come and
help them, for Hart could not now
stir himself. Cockaine would faine
have answered, but he could not,
not look about ; something, he
thought, stopt both his breath, and
held down his eyelids. Amazed thus,
he struggles and kickt about, till he
had waked Captain Crook, who, half
asleep, grew very angry at his kicks,
and multiplied words, it grew to an
appointment in the field ; but this
fully recovered Cockaine to remem-
ber that Captain Hart had called for
help. 4* Come hither, O, come hither,
brother Cockaine."

The first incident of some interest is the mistake of " James " for
"Jeminie" which I had chosen to suggest the possible mistake of
J ennie, if the right name was not given. I was surprised on comparing

Digitized by Google

. . called
and cook
him . .
himself
answer .

about . Some

. . troubles

. . . cook

. improvise

but this

. . . called for

come hither, O come hither, prythee,
come here.

XLI.]

Appendix V.

627

results with my data to find that the rest of the name, phonetically,
was correct. The subject explained, before I had the opportunity to
express my surprise, that he recognised this promptly because he knew
a friend by this name. I had used the expression " windlass horse "
purposely to suggest " windless house/' " didn't " to see if the " not "
would be omitted, and "climb at " to suggest with what followed, the
word " climate." But too little was caught to create even an illusion.

The third case shows the interesting failure to get the proper
name, though repeated here in several forms as attempt to get the last
form. But the words obtained show that a person was clearly in mind,
but nothing comes to give evidence of identity. The mistake of " con-
nection " for "election " is interesting. But the whole is meaningless.

In the fourth case, both proper names are failures. The second name
I intended to suggest Edward, if it was not gotten itself. The fifth
explains itself with the interesting mistake of " Carnegie " for
" Kerneguy." It appears also that the word " thought " is interpreted
as " but." It is impossible to tell what suggested the word " argument."
The sixth case also requires no comments except to remark that no
proper names are received, and the word " turnips " is a funny mistake
evidently for " gauntlets."

The last instance is, perhaps, the most interesting, as the confusion
is more sustained, and the mistakes more striking. Here, we have
"change" for "strange," "troubles" for "struggles," "improvise"
for " multiplied," and " pry thee " for " brother," and also " come here "
for " Cockaine." Not a single proper name is obtained. If " Cook "
had been capitalised, it would have been conceived by the receiver as
a proper name, but such a conception was not suspected, while it only
approximates in sound the real name. Not a particle of the thought
is obtained.

How far the results represent greater facility in getting the words
having the most familiar sound and the most frequently used, this
single experiment cannot determine. We should probably forecast what
would be the case from what we already know in psychology, and might
not require experimental evidence to support it. But the facts as far
as they go sustain the position that proper names are more difficult to
communicate, and that familiar words of a simple sort are obtained
most easily.

Second Experiment.

Communicator. Receiver.

1. At the following Postal Tele- 1. At the following

graph Offices : — offices : —

98, Broadway, Williamsburg. 98 . . . Williamsburg .

2, Court Street-, at the junction of . . Court St., at the junction of
Fulton Street. St.

Digitized by CjgNJ^MC

628

J. H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[part

7, Greene Avenue, at the junction
of Fulton Street.

463, Fifth Ave., near 9th St.

77, 7th Ave., Corner Berkeley
Place.

1105, Fulton St., near Ormond
Place.

1458, Fulton St., near Tompkins
Ave.

332, Court St., near Sackett St.

DAY BROTHERS, Drugstore,
Ralph Ave., and Broadway.

746, Flushing Ave., near Broad-
way.

203, Ewen St., near Ten Eyck St.
335, De Kalk Ave. . near Ryerson
St.

Hundred 50th St. . . 99th St.
77

7000 .... in near College
Place.

1388 .... near Tompkins
Ave.

. .2 . . St. near .... Second
St.

Day Brothers. Drugstore . . .

736, Flushing Ave

215, New St. ... near Ten

Eyck ... near

. ... St.

2. Kingsley. "TheGreek Heroes."

Hawethorne. 44 The Wonder
Book," k4Tanglewood Tales," "Twice
Told Tales."

Church. " Stories from Homer,"
"Stories from Herodotus."

Lanier. 4 'The Boy's King Arthur. "

Cheney. "A Peep at the Pilgrims."

Mrs. Child. 44 The First Settlers
of New England."

Spofford. 44 New England Legends."

Irving. 44 Knickerbocker's His-
tory of New York." 44 Life of
Washington."

Beacon Biographies. Farragut,
Webster, Lowell, Phillips Brooks,
Robert E. Lee

2. Kingsley

Hawethorne. The Wonder Book.
Tangle wood Tales

Church

.... The Boy's

. . . . a peep at the . . .

Mrs Chubb. The First Settlers
of new England.

New England Worthies.

Irving. Knickerbocker (?) History
of New York. Life of Washington.

Webster Phillips

Brooks Newman.

3. The definition of psychology
may be best given in the words of
Professor Ladd, as the description —

3. The definition of . .
may be best given in ... .
Professor Ladd, as the description —

4. What do you think of the
weather, and its results • on the
Dreyfus case ? I do not see why
Panizzardi and Schwartzkoppen did
not testify in it, even if it was warm.
1 suppose the young Emperor could
not very well play the role of world
reconciler.

4 of the murder

and its results on the . . . .
. . . I do not think I . . . .

. . . . testimony

was I suppose the

young Emperor could not very well
send the old regi-
cide.

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix V,

629

5. Our leadership in the domain
of China and glass becomes more
evident every day. We are eclipsing
the victories of our own past. The
business is carried forward by the
magnetism of peerless values. French
sorbet sets, Hquer sets, glasses for
creme de menthe, iridescent glass —
it shimmers, twinkles, and changes in
differeot lights. Ginoris Maiolica
ware, the euphoneous name indicates
its Italian origin.

5. Our in the . .

. . of China and Japan .
come more . . . every day.
We are .... the interests
of our own . ... The busi-
ness is carried on by the menaces

. . irritating

perhaps

. . . . idle origin.

6. Alle Koerper sind ausgedehnt.
AUe Koerper sind schwer. Dass alle
unsere Erkenntniss mit der Erfah-
rung anfange daran ist gar kein
Zweifel.

6. Allah allah . .

sind schwer. Das ist alle . . .

. . an fang . . daran . . .
. . . . kein schw ....

7. Structure of the nervous system.
Distinction between neurally and
non-neurally organised beings. Nerve
elements. Characteristic of centers
and connecting linos. Fibres. Con-
nections between centers and peri-
phery. Sensory and Motor. Cells.
Ganglia for the reception and distri-
bution of impressions and movements
consist of gray masses of matter.

7 of the ... .

physic. The distinction between
neurally and non-neurally organised
beings Character-
istics connecting

spinal

sensory

gangalia cords . . . perception
and disposition of

8. The celebrated definition of 8. The celebrated ....

Tragedy in the Poetics may, I believe, . . of in the .

be fairly paraphrased as follows fair

44 Tragedy is a representation of an as follows is

action noble and complete in itself, a representation of the action

and of appreciable magnitude, in the self

language of special fascination, using .... appreciable magnitude

different kinds of utterance in differ- of sufficient conserva-

ent parts, given through performers, tion, using different kinds of .

and not by means of narration, and ... in the different objects .

producing by pity and fear the alle and

viating discharge of emotions of that not by ...

nature." discharge of motion of . . .

9. Well, how did you like your 9. Well how, did you like your
vacation in the west ? You remember vacation in the west ? . . . re-

IUinois ? Springfield and Chicago member Illinois ? . . ...

Digitized by Google

630

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

ought to please you, but Kohlsaat
might not be so interesting, even if
he is the friend of McKinley.

• . . Chicago

. . . but Kohlsaat might not be
so interested in — even if he is a
friend of McKinley.

10. Wohin gehen alle Menschen
wann sie sterben ? Glauben Sie dass
sie untersinken, order sollen sie
noch leben in einer anderen welt ?

It is a fine day. I hope it will not
rain. The sky is clear now, and it
may continue so until we get back
from our walk.

10. (Recognised first was German.)

dass ich alios unter-

schen, oder sollen sie noch . . .
ander . .

It is a fine day. I hope it will not
rain. (The sky is clear) now and it
may continue so until we get back
from our walk.

11. Arnold Biederman was as an
especial advocate for peace, while its
preservation was compatible with
national independence, and the honor
of the Confederacy ; but the younger
Philipson soon discovered that the
landamman alone, of all his family
cherished these moderate views. The
opinion of his sons had been swayed
and seduced by the impetuous eloqu-
ence and over-bearing influence of
Rudolph of Donnerhugel.

11. (French didn't get it.) . . .

while its

preservation was

national tendencies and the honour
of the Confederacy . . . younger
soon discovered . .

. of all ... honour and cher-
ish

the opinion of his sons had been

by the

impetuous eloquence and over
. of Rudolph . .

12. Upon the Restoration, Doctor
Rocheliffe regained his living of Wood-
stock, with other church preferment,
and gave up polemics and political
intrigues for philosophy. He was
one of the constituent members of the
Royal Society.

12. Upon their estimation, Doctor

. of with other

judge (?) employment

was .

. . constituted

of the Royal Society.

13. Outside the blind spot the
sensibility of the retina varies. It is
the greatest at the fovea, a little pit

13 sensi-
bility of the retina

greatest

lying outwardly from the entrance of out

the optic nerve.

of entrance of the optic nerve.

The first passage was chosen with reference to proper names and
addresses in particular, as it shows itself. The experiments were
conducted precisely as before. The mistakes generally speak for them-
selves. They easily indicate what illusions the sitter may act under
when he takes definite communications of addresses for guidance.
It was interesting to note that the receiver did not get Broadway,

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix V.

631

but did get Williamsburg, as the former is the more familiar of the two.
Bat even more familiar sounds than this are unperceived in this case.
The mistake of " College Place " for " Ormond Place " was interesting,
as possibly a subliminal association of the name Berkeley in the
previous sentence, and not heard supraliminally. But the most mis-
leading error up to this point is " Second St." for "Sackett St.," also
" New " for " Ewen " is interesting.

The second instance was chosen for proper names, and the apper-
ception mass which they are calculated to excite, and hence, we should
expect, when the receiver is familiar with the works of the author, that
he should more easily recognise the sounds connected with the name
already recognised, and also that the opposite would take place when
he did not know the names of authors and their works. These
suppositions were borne out in the results, which speak for themselves
very largely. Kingsley, Church, Lanier and Cheney would have failed
to have identified themselves in these messages. Hawethorne's message
was perfect. Spofford did not get his name, and would have depended
wholly upon the title of his book for recognition, which would have
been a poor test. The mistake of " Mrs. Chubb " for " Mrs. Child " is
very interesting for its actual approximation to the right name, but
also for the difference which it exhibits to the eye. The name of
" Newman " for " Robert E. Lee " is a remarkable error, and hardly
conceivable. * What a judgment it would suggest if a spirit made this
mistake !

The third passage for communication was chosen because the
receiver was known to be perfectly familiar with it. It was not long
until it was recognised, and the fact stated, so that it was unnecessary
to go farther. But the crucial word at the beginning was not gotten,
and only when the proper name was obtained did the clue appear for
the rest. The next, the fourth case, is especially interesting as illus-
trating the entire failure to obtain any conception whatever of the
message intended. "Murder" for "weather," send" for "play,"
" old" for "role," and "regicide" for "reconciler," and the complete
omission of the proper names makes the whole passage unintelligible.

In the fifth, the receiver's habit of associating Japan with China,
is the explanation of the mistake of this name for glass. Unfamiliar
words are missed, and the confusion of others is almost inexplicable.

Interest " for " victories," " menaces " for " magnetism," " irritating "
for " iridescent," and " idle " probably for Italian, are striking and
wholly unexpected errors. The last part of the message also is inter-
esting because it shows unfamiliar words, and a corresponding failure
in communication. On the whole, however, the passage as received
has too little resemblance to the original to indicate any intelligi-
bility in it.

632

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

The German passage I gave in order to see whether it made any
difference in the communications before the receiver was told of the
intention to test him in this way. He reported that at first, he thought
I was giving hiin Arabic. But the moment that he got " sind schwer,"
he recognised that what he had taken for Arabic was German, but the
passage, which was taken out of Kant's Critique, was not received fully
enough to indicate its identity.

The next, and seventh instance, was chosen also for the familiarity
of it to the receiver. He discovered its identity in spite of its frag-
mentary character and the mistakes. These last seem unaccountable
in several instances. " Physic " for 44 system," " spinal " for " lines, :> and
" cords " for 44 for " are striking errors. 44 Perception " for " reception "
was a natural mistake to make under the circumstances which rather
favoured this apperception of the sound. The next is also wholly
unintelligible owing to the mistakes. 44 Sufficient conservation" for
44 special facination " is a singular error, but 44 motion " for 44 emotion"
is quite natural. The proper names are missing as usual.

The ninth passage was taken because it represented references to
the receiver's own state with names and places that were familiar to
him. This is measurably successful, only one proper name failing.
There was some surprise in the receiver's getting the unusual name of
the German gentleman given, though it may be that the combination of
sounds in this name is especially favourable to recognition. The tenth,
containing a German passage with English of a very plain sort was
designed to test more carefully the question of familiar sounds, the
receiver being less familiar with German than English. The result
illustrates tne case very clearly. The English was all of it gotten,
that part in brackets arising into consciousness as the rest of the
sentence was coming. But the German shows no conception of what
was in my mind as communicator.

The eleventh is interesting, for tue fact, that what was received
suggests the American Confederacy, and would appear false under the
circumstances that would render the Swiss Confederacy pertinent.
The clue in what is received is too slight to give any hint of the real
reference of the communicator. In the twelfth instance, the chief
interest lies in the fact that the name Rocheliffe was not gotten,
though in the first experiment before, it surprised me by being obtained.
This sort of variation seems frequent in the Piper case. ' 4 Judge
employment" for 44 church preferment" is a singular error, and in the
last, and thirteenth message, the interest consists in the fact that the
receiver recognised, as I had intended, that the passage was from my
syllabus with which he was familiar. But he did not get it with
sufficient clearness to locate the subject with complete definiteness.
All that he could determine was that it pertained to the eye, but the

XLI.]

Appendix V.

633

essential clues in the words " blind spot " and " fovea " were missed,
and hence the communication might easily give rise to all sorts
of illusions.

But the most important feature of the whole set of experiments
is the result regarding proper names and words that are not the most
common in conversation. Wherever any set of terms seems to occur
that do not fall easily into the mass of apperception suggested by any
given term the tendency to either error or failure is very marked.
Long words noticeably show this failure if they are not very common.
The incident or clue has to be clear before there is any security that
words can even be guessed. Now proper names are notably terms
without connotative or descriptive meaning and hence the sounds
produced by them have little or no suggestive meaning. They must
naturally give rise to difficulties in recognition on that account, as
the apperceptive mass is the point de repere of all the most probable
interpretations. This principle applies to infrequent terms as well as
proper names. In fact the two are exactly alike in this respect, and
it is interesting to find that experimental results show precisely the
same characteristics in this respect. The general resemblance of the
Piper case to these conclusions is noticeable in the fact that
the vocabulary of easy communication seems limited. In two cases
I deliberately tried unfamiliar words and the difficulties here noted
occurred. The expressions that I used were " United Presbyterian "
and *4 Presidential Election," and there was great difficulty in
getting them understood. In this case, of course, I was the commu-
nicator. But either way the difficulty ought to occur, as we have the
human organism in the case of Mrs. Piper as the medium through
which the message has to be given, while the analogous case to these
experiments lies in the manner in which the " control " has to get the
communications from the " communicator." But aside from all
questions of spirit communication there is in these experiments a
complete duplication of the difficulties and errors in the Piper case,
with an explanation in the known laws of mental phenomena, virtually
indicating that such mistakes ought to occur with proper names and
unfamiliar words. And it is not a little interesting to note that the
confusion in my experiments is even greater than in the Piper
experiments as a whole. Very few of the messages in the present
experiments succeed in becoming intelligible at all. Freedom from
errors seems to be connected with the simplest language and the most
frequently used words. The variations between success and failure
are not so common as in the Piper phenomena. There is almost
uniform confusion in the present instance. But the error and confu-
sion are like the Piper case in their characteristics, and rather indicate
that it is a wonder, assuming spirit communication at all, that we

634

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

obtain anything intelligible whatever. This difference between the
cases suggests that possibly we have those variations of the mental
conditions for communications which I have marked in the conversa-
tion with hypnotic subjects who have often, and perhaps generally, to
be prodded in order to retain the conditions for conversation at all.
If that supposition be correct we can understand the variations
between clear and confused messages in the Piper case, while the laws
that are marked in these experiments at communication will explain
the uniform difficulties in connection with proper names and less com-
mon words, whether the communication is clear or confused.

I XLI.]

Appendix VI.

635

APPENDIX VI.

Experiments in Hypnosis.

Last spring one of my students came to me with the following story.
He said that he had been knocked down at football and remained un-
conscious for an hour and a half, and that when he had awakened from his
condition he had no recollection of this time or of the events that had taken
place while he was apparently conscious, as he bad been told of some things
that he had done in his secondary state. He asked me to hypnotise him
and to see if I could throw any light on the matter. I promised to do so,
though I had not previously been very successful in hynotising people, and
arranged for the time of the experiment. My plan was to interrogate the
subject for the events and memories of the lost hour and a half, after the
manner of the Ansel Bourne case (Proceedings, Vol. VII., pp. 221-259). I
was somewhat handicapped at the outset by the fact that some of the
principal things which the subject had said and done had been told him by
his companions afterward, and hence I had but a margin to work upon for
traces of a hypnotic memory alone. However, I tried, and the following
are the results. I took complete notes at the time and wrote them down
immediately on my return home, so that the present record is not wanting
on the ground of any neglect in regard to the means of making it useful.

The first attempt was made on April 22nd (1899). I hypnotised Mr. L.
with some difficulty, taking some half-an-hour to effect somnambulism.
But as soon as I was assured of deep enough hypnosis, which I accomplished
in the usual way of trying various suggestions of an absurd sort, I began
with the question whether he, the subject, had ever played football. I
received the answer, "Yes," and asked, "When?" I got the answer,
"Last Wednesday." I then asked Mr. L. to tell me what had happened
after this during the whole time he had remained in this condition, not
expressing myself in exactly this language, but in a way to intimate my
idea. But I soon found that if I got the story it must be by dint of much
prodding, because the subject showed a drowsy condition and had to be
urged at the end of every sentence to go on with the story, by asking him
questions whether anything else occurred. In this way the following state-
s' ments were made : —

"* "I was struck by the ball, but I did not know what happened to myself.

Mr. S. took my head on his knee. It was there about a minute and a half .
I was then laid down. I did not get up right away, but felt all right in a
minute. I lay a short time, got up on my side and turned over. I said I
would lie down. Mr. Sa. (Sa. to distinguish him from Mr. S. above) asked
how I felt. All right, I said, but I did not know what had happened. I walked
up the field with one of the boys on each side, Mr. Sa. on the right, I think,

I and Van H. on the left. They took me up to the end of the field and laid
me down with my head on Mr. S. 's leg. I was not told this. I was there
about a minute and a half. 8. told me I must stop and see the base-ball

636

J, H. Hydop, Ph.D.

[PAKT

game. I stood up and stood around watching the game as they kept on
] ikying. Then they took me by the arms and crossed out at the gate, up
the steps, across a little corner of grass down to the Gym. S., I think,
unlocked my locker and got out a part of my clothes. I had left them there
to play football. They gave me a shower-bath. This was at the end of the
Gym., nearest my locker. I used the shower-bath at the right baud side as
you go in about the middle, or if not there, the nearest as you go in. I
think I did not want to wet my head. I dressed myself and put on a
sweater instead of a shirt, and was taken to Dr. Savage's office and lay
down on a couch. Dr. Savage was giving an examination, but said that
I would not bother him. I was told to go to sleep, but I did not do so.
Soon 1 began to realise where I was and awakened from my condition."

I had some difficulty in finding Mr. S. for an iuterview in regard to the
facts in this narrative, but at last succeeded in getting him on the 24th
inst. I had been very careful in the meantime not to say a word to Mr. L.
of what he had told me in his secondary state. I was careful also not to
explain lo him what I had done until I had asked for confirmation or denial
of the facts told me by Mr. L. I simply asked him whether the incidents
in the narrative were correct or not, and he verified every one of them in
detail, except two. The first was that Mr. L. was not struck by the ball,
but suffered from collision with the head of another student. The second
was that Mr. L. did not turn himself over, but was turned over by Mr. S.
All the other details were correct except the equivocal statement about the
shower-bath, which was corrected, however, by Mr. L. in the statements of
the second experiment. Some of the main features of the incidents thus
narrated had been told him by the men who had taken him to the
Gymnasium after the accident, and cannot therefore be counted among
those belonging solely to the secondary consciousness. But Mr. S. told me
those which he had not mentioned to Mr. L. after the recovery of his
normal condition. They were the question of Mr. Sa. and L.'s reply, the
crossing 44 the corner of grass," the getting of his clothes by S., the shower-
bath, "at the end of the Gym., nearest the locker," and the statement of
Dr. Savage that L.'s presence on the couch would not bother him in his
examination. What he had been told of these incidents consisted of the
names of the persons that had taken him to the Gymnasium, and none of
the details. But as the only way from the field to the Gymnasium lay
across the grounds, the passage through the gate, up the steps, and to the
Gymnasium, would describe as well what he must have done, whether he
remembered it or uot, and could be imagined from a knowledge of arriving
at the Gymnasium. But crossing 44 the corner of grass" was no necessary
part of such a course, and, in fact, was out of the proper path, and
forbidden ; though students with their field-shoes on often seem to disregard
the rule on this point. On the whole, however, the incidents that had not
been told him are sufficiently numerous to exclude the supposition of
chance, and to support the contention in favour of a secondary memory
distinct from the normal state.

In addition to this confirmation, however, Mr. S. also narrated some
interesting phenomena occurring during the secondary state that Mr. L. had
not told ine in either state. Mr. S. reported that Mr. L. asked on the way

XLI.]

Appendix VI.

637

to the Gymnasium what day it was, and remarked that he had asked th*
same question a thousand years ago. Mr. L. also remarked to Dr. Savage,
as he observed the latter conducting the physical examination of some
student, that he himself, Mr. L., took that examination about one hundred
years ago. Mr. L. also remarked, according to the same authority, that he
had forgotten all his knowledge and that he would have to go to the 4 * Prep."
school again and begin it all over. This statement was made to several
persons.

When he recovered from the daze he asked Mr. McK. to return the
ring which that person was holding while Mr. L. played football, and in his
spontaneous manner indicated to his companions that he had no recollection
of what had happened, they being naturally a little incredulous of his
asseverations.

It was nearly two weeks before I could secure Mr. L. for another experi-
ment. But on May 6th I succeeded in this object. On this occasion I tried
some of the same and some further experiments. I found it more difficult
than before to hypnotise him, owing possibly to the presence of another
person in the room, one of my assistants. I had to make the trial a second
time before I succeeded, but when I did succeed the hypnosis was more
profound than before, since the answers to my questions were not so ready,
and there seemed to be more marked tendencies to drowsiness. I found on
inquiry before he had entered the hypnotic state that he could remember
nothing of the experiment two weeks before after I had begun the work of
hypnotising him. This was an evidence both of the genuineness of the
previous trance and of the unhypnotised condition of the patient at this
time. Afterwards I aided in bringing on the hypnosis by suggesting that
he should try to feel good and happy as he went to sleep. I obtained
evidences after the subject came out that this suggestion had had its
influence, as remarks of the subject on the return of consciousness indicate.

When I had satisfied myself that I had secured hypnosis, I asked Mr. I*.
if he remembered going to a preparatory school, and received an affirmative
answer. I asked this question because, as the previous report indicates, I
had been told that he had remarked the loss of his knowledge and expressed
the fear that he would have to start at the preparatory school again. This
remark, as above indicated, he had made to his friends in his dazed con-
dition after the injury in the collision. I then asked him if he remembered
saying anything about the loss of his knowledge, and he replied that he did ,
that he thought he would have to begin study all over again, and that he
thought at the time that he was not all right, the last two incidents having
been given without further question or the influence from auy suggestion
that a question might give. I then asked what the preparatory school was
to which he went, and he replied, "St. Paul's, in Garden City." I then
asked him if he knew anybody by the name of Van H., and he replied
44 Yes," and I further asked whether this man had done anything for him
when he was dazed after the hurt, and he replied that * * he was first end on
the right, and he himself (L.) was on the left end in the field." The mean-
ing of this was not certain to me at the time, but I understood that it was
that Van H. was playing on the right and Mr. L. on the left in the game.
Inquiry showed that my interpretation was correct. The incident shows

Digitized by Google

638

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

that the normal state to some extent interpenetrates, even when not recog-
nised as such, with the secondary state. So also do many of the other
incidents of a similar nature.

I then asked him with reference to his having made a remark about
something occurring a thousand years ago. He recalled having said some-
thing about it, and added, spontaneously, that he 44 thought he had done all
these things before," referring to what had occurred to him after his hurt
and in the secondary state that followed it. But I could get nothing more
definite in regard to the meaning of this alleged memory.

I asked, further, about what he thought regarding the examination of Dr.
Savage, alluding, but without suggesting the matter definitely, to the fact
told me by Mr. S. My question was just as stated above. He replied that
he thought at the time that he had taken the examination before, but was
not sure, and thought he had not been marked.

I then asked him who took him to the Gymnasium and was answered by

the statement, 44 S. and N B ." I followed with the query, how he

had gone and he described his going as he did before. He said they " came
out of the ^ate, up the Library steps, and on the right side of the Library
crossing the corner of the grass, on the right corner by the tree where the
sign was, and down the steps into the Gymnasium at the right hand
entrance. "

Asked how long he was dazed he said, "one and a half hours ;" asked
also where he took his bath, he replied at 44 the end of the Gym., towards Dr.
Savage's room in compartment on the right side, not nearest the middle, but
nearest the lockers." He went on to say, without further question, that S.
dried him, and that he then went out and sat down by the locker, stayed a
few minutes, got half dressed, and did not remember what he then did. He
did not remember going to Dr. Savage's room, but did remember lying on
his couch. He remembered lying there for about ten minutes, and then
nothing more.

At this point I began trying questions of a different sort and designed to
discover traces, first of his normal sleep life, and then of the connection
between both this and the secondary state and that between the latter and
his normal consciousness. I first asked him if he could recall any dreams.
He replied that he did not. I pressed the question, but received the same
answer twice more. I then asked him his name, and he hesitated some
time without being able to give it. I said, 4k I don't think you have any.*'
He answered, 44 No." 1 then asked, 44 How old are you ? " and received no
answer except the kind of half stammer of a person trying to think what his
age was, and I then asked, 44 About fifty ? " and the answer came promptly,
44 Yes." (He is not over twenty -one or twenty -two, perhaps less.) I asked,
44 Where were you born ? " and he could not tell this, though I waited
awhile. I then said, 44 You have forgotten, have you ?" and received the
answer, **Yes."

1 then tried the following experiments. The patient was sitting on one
chair, his feet placed on another, and with his head cushioned on the back
of the chair upon which he was sitting, and his eyes closed. I was standing
between him and a table which was not more than two feet distant from his
body. I stood between his head and the table, so that even with his eyes

XLI.]

Appendix VI.

639

open he could not have Been me take anything from the table. Moreover, I
could reach anything I liked on this table without making any more noise
than would be caused by the friction of my clothes on the skin, and I could
also move it to the back of his head without his seeing it even with his eyes
open in the normal state, to say nothing of their being closed and him in
hypnosis.

I first picked up his glasses, which he had laid on the table before I began
my experiment, and held them about six inches from the back of his head,
opposite the cerebellum. I had done this in a maimer that he could neither
«ee me pick them up nor see me move them to that position. I asked him
if he could not see what I had placed at the back of his head, and after hesi-
tating a moment and receiving the question again, he said he saw my hand,
and when I asked what else, he replied, 44 A pencil." The fact was that my
pencil was in my left hand in front of him and visible to any one with his
eyes open. I then put down the glasses, picked up the ink-bottle as noise-
lessly as possible and moved it to the back of his head as cautiously as I
could, and with movements to prevent any possible perception of it even
with open eyes in a normal state, and asked him again if he saw what was
there, and he replied with great promptness, 44 An ink-bottle." I then took
up a pink-coloured examination book with the number 416 written on the
cover, and asked him, after putting it at the back of his head, what he saw,
and received for reply, 44 A table with pen and papers on it." I last took
my watch out of my pocket while purposely talking to him to prevent his
hearing my movements, and held it at the back of his head, asking him
what he saw there, and he replied, 44 An ink-bottle again."

The prompt and interesting hit of the ink-bottle in the second experi-
ment was a surprise to me at the time, and I tried the succeeding experiments
to verify the suspicion that it awakened. But their failure and the nature
of the answers suggested the probable source of the coincidence. His
supraliminal knowledge of the table and its natural contents, taken with the
suggestion to the secondary state from my movements, in spite of their
caution, most probably, or possibly at least, intimated the case of the table,
papers, and pen. Thus, the incident of the ink-bottle is easily explained,
the imagination of the objects being suggested by an inference from the
hypersesthetic perception of my movements.

Immediately after these experiments, I awakened the subject and asked
him if he remembered anything he did. He replied that he remembered
getting up and sitting down again, and that he was asked to do something in
the way of tests, until one of them created quite a strange impression. At
last, he said, he saw a square hole going down towards the centre of the
earth. 44 1 felt conscious," he said, 44 when this started, and then something
came and told me to go to sleep, and I at once felt nice and enjoyable."

These statements are a tolerably good reproduction of what took place
after awakening him from the first trial of hypnosis half an hour before and
during the second attempt. I had thought that I was going to fail in the
experiment, as the signs of hypnosis did not occur, and awakened him to
test him and assure myself of what his condition was. I found that his
answers were favourable to a second attempt, and had him sit down again for
another trial, after saying that he might rest a few moments. I then began

640

J. If. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

the hypnotising again in the usual way by passes over the eyes and forehead.
At last I told him to go to sleep and feel happy, because he was going to
have a nice time. Soon after this I found him in hypnosis, as the tests
indicated.

He also remarked after coming out of the trance that he was deeper in
sleep than before (two weeks before) because he could not remember hearing
my voice this time.

Two days after, May 8th, and without divulging anything told me either
to Mr. L or anyone else, I had an interview with the N B men-
tioned by the subject in hypnosis as one of the parties who took him to the
Gym. But I found that this person did not go with him. He did, however,
walk with him to the gate of the ball field, and could not remember who it
was that did accompany L. to the Gymnasium. Mr. B., however, remem-
bers that Mr. L. asked him a number of incoherent questions during his
dazed condition after the hurt, and among them, as an example, he asked
44 how he (L.) had gotten his (B.'s) clothes on." Mr. B. had lent Mr. L. his
clothes to play in.

The fact that Mr. B. accompanied him to the gate accounts very readily
for the discrepancy in L.'s account, while the amount of error in it favours
the genuineness of the phenomena with which I am dealing, as against the
possible suspicion of foul play with me. It would be quite a natural mistake
to make in any confused state. The previous narrative does not contradict
it, as names had not been given.

An interview also with Mr. Van H. shows that he was not one of the
persons that accompanied Mr. L. to the Gymnasium. But he did accom-
pany him, as did Mr. B., as far as the gate at the entrance to the field.

Mr. Van H. also says that it was the collision of his own head with that
of Mr. L. that caused the hurt, and not a stroke of the ball, as I was told
in the first experiment. Nor was it a kick on the chest, as I had been
told in the first experiment, but forgot to record it. The failure of Mr.
L. 's memory at this point is interesting and natural, as he had insisted all
along, both in his dazed condition and also in his normal condition, that he
did not know how he was hurt. Mr. Van. H. said that as they brought
Mr. L. to the middle of the field after the hurt, he, Mr. L., did not seem
to know how he had been hurt, and, looking at the game in bewilderment,
asked if that was the way he was hurt. The confusion in the hypnosis at
this point then is interesting.

All three men, Messrs B., S., and Van H., confirmed the truth of the
other incidents in the narrative as given in hypnosis, even down to the
crossing at the right of the Library and over the corner of the grass where the
tree and sign were, except that the confirmation of this last feature was by S.«
who had accompanied L. all the way. After Mr. L. came out of the trance
I asked him where he had gone to the preparatory school, and received the
same answer as in hypnosis, " St. Paul's, in Garden City." A number of
the incidents had been told him after he recovered consciousness, such
as his queer remarks about having lost his knowledge, and thinking that all
this had occurred before. But some of the smaller and less striking inci-
dents had not been told him in this dazed condition : for instance, that he
himself, Mr. L., was on the left end in the field. But this was, of course,

XLI.]

Appendix VI.

641

an incident of the normal consciousness. Nor had he been told the exact
direction of his course to the Gymnasium. The incidents of the tree and
sign and crossing the corner of the grass were also matters of supraliminal
knowledge in so far as previous habits were concerned, and would be the
probable course of men in athletic dress in spite of the rules to the contrary
in the institution.

Some days afterward I tried to repeat the experiments, but owing to the
accident of a sudden shock, like the quasi electrical shock which we often
experience as we go to sleep, Mr. L. was awakened, after a long attempt to
hypnotise him, and I did not have time to continue tho experiment.

Most of the incidents in these experiments speak for themselves, and it
requires no comment by me to explain their significance, if they have any.
They resemble the usual phenomena of hypnosis. But I may recapitulate
gome of the points of interest. In the first place, there is no trace of a
connection between the subject's ordinary sleep and the hypnotic condition.
But these experiments are not sufficient to throw any light upon that question,
on one side or the other. There is, however, a decided connection between the
normal and the secondary consciousness, though it is not one in which the
secondary consciousness seems to have any recognition that the incidents
common to the two states belonged to a normal condition. But what
interested me most in the case was two facts. First, that connection
between the primary and the secondary states which indicates a unity
of personal ground for the phenomena, whatever disintegration we may
observe in the phenomenal unity of the two states, or perhaps, better,
whatever segregation we observe in the two series. There seemed to
be absolutely no conscious unity whatsoever between the two states,
though there is undoubtedly a subject unity in them. The second
and most interesting characteristic is the resemblance of the perform-
ance to what we have to imagine is the case " on the other side " in
the Piper phenomena. I found that I could get nothing out of the subject
without constant prodding. The tendency to silent drowsiness was so great
that I could get him to talk only in answer to questions. Now, in the Piper
Reports, the allegation is that the " communicator " is in a dazed condition
and that it is difficult to get any statements from him. The confusion
certainly resembles what I here observe. I remember one instance precisely
like this. Phinuit, speaking to one of the "communicators," as if to arouse
him, says : 44 Don't go to sleep." Similar intimations seem to be frequent.
(See Proceedings, Vol. XIII, pp. 464, 466, and 473.) We cannot press this
analogy with any great assurance without many experiments and a larger
accumulation of facts. But it is worth calling attention to it here as a
suggestion of what needB observation. There seems also a suggestive
possibility in the subject's inability to give his own name, age, and birth.
Is there any connection between this and the similar difficulties and
hesitation with which 4 * communicators in the Piper caso give their own
names, though they seem more ready to give the names of others, as
noticeable here ? Mr. L. had spontaneously mentioned some facts
representing incidents of his normal life, and he mentioned others in
response to questions not calculated to suggest them ; but he had, in spite
of this, wholly forgotten his name, age, and time of his birth, unless we

642

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[PABT

suppose that he should have been given more time, as in the Piper instance,
to give them. But whatever our view of the case, there is this phenomenal
resemblance between the two sets of facts.

New York, November 9th, 1899.
We, the undersigned parties to the incidents narrated in the above
account of experiments with Mr. Luin, aver that our part in them has been
one of good faith and honesty, and that we have not consciously done or
said anything that would impeach the character of the facts as reported
to Professor Hyslop by ourselves. To the best of our knowledge this is a
true account of the events as they occurred within our observation. — Very
truly,

Thomas Simons,

H. Van H(evj5NBBRg, Jun.,

Ralph £. Lom.

Witness : J. H. Hyslop.

Digitized by

! xll]

Appendix VII.

643

APPENDIX VII.

Quotations bearing on the Mental Condition op the Communicator

It has occurred to me while reading the proofs that the reader
might wish to have the evidence for the position taken throughout the
Report that the communicator was not in his normal mental state while
communicating, at least for part of the time. There may be lucid
moments enough, but there are times when his mental state apparently
borders on delirium or the complete loss of memory, and something like
hypnosis or secondary personality. It will be convenient for the
reader to have the evidence for this collected together with the
references. I have confined myself to my own Report in this evidence,
though previous Reports are quite as full of similar indications of an
abnormal mental condition while communicating. Besides, I have not
incorporated in this list of indications the indirect evidence consisting
of certain confused messages, and various passages showing intrinsic
marks of some mental disturbance. The reader must determine these
for himself by a psychological study of the contents. I have
therefore limited myself to the direct statements of the communicators
and those messages which do not require study to ascertain the fact
asserted.

The first statement that indicates an abnormal mental condition
occurred in the first sitting, and shows of itself from the connection in
which it took place that it was one of those incoherences that we are
familiar with in deliria. It occurred just at the close of the communi-
cator's effort when he had to disappear. It was the expression, " I say,
give me my hat " (p. 307). This was repeated in precisely similar con-
ditions at the second sitting. " Give me my hat, and let me go " (p. 313).
A little later (p. 313) occurred, " I want my head clear. I am choking."
The attempt first to give the name of my uncle Carruthers ended in
calling him " uncle Charles," and I disowned him. The reply of the
communicator showed the consciousness of some confusion or difficulty,
"No, I am thinking ... let me see" (p. 316). A little later he
said, " I know, James, that my thoughts are muddled, but if you can
only hear what I am saying you will not mind it" (p. 316). In the
same sitting at the close of a rather confused attempt to deliver some
messages, he said, uIn a short time they tell me I will be able to
recall everything I ever did. You could be . . my . . . kne*

while Communicating.

644

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

does not ... I will have to go for a moment. Wait for me "
(p. 319). A similar remark was made at the next sitting, just after
the confused attempt to tell an incident about a fire. It was, " Do
you know that in a little while I will be able to recall everything I ever
knew " (p. 325). Just after a passage in which two chronologically
separated but psychologically connected facts were alluded to, the
communicator says, " I feel better now, James. I felt very much con-
fused when I first came here" (p. 327). In reference to something
that he could not recall he said, " But strange I cannot think of the
word I want" (p. 330), and a little later regarding a similar matter,
"This is what I cannot think, and it troubles me a little, James,
because I know it so well " (p. 330). In reference to my sister Annies
communication at the third sitting he said, " She has been here longer
than I have, James, and is clearer in her thoughts when she is trying
to speak, but do not feel troubled about it " (p. 332). It is interesting
to remark that both statements are true. My sister died long before
my father, and her communications show decidedly less mental disturb-
ance than his. A moment later my father said, after Rector,
apparently discovering something wrong, had remarked to me to mow,
" Yes, my head grows lighter and lighter " (p. 332). At the fourth
sitting my father said, "My head seems clearer and I can see
you perfectly. I can see and hear better than ever. Your voice
to me does not seem so far away. I will come nearer day by day "

After some confusion about the medicine for which I had asked, he
said, " I seem to lose part of my recollections between my absence and
return" (p. 336). Speaking of the accordion which had been "given
him " to " hold " him, as the spiritistic lingo has it, he said, " I am
clearer when I see it " (p. 336). This is apparently true of all the
communications. In almost the next sentence occurs an automatism
quite like the references to his hat (pp. 307 and 313). "Where is my
coat. I begin to think of what I do not need " (p. 336). It is most
interesting to remark here that the communicator discovers that his
mind is wandering, and alludes himself to the incoherence. After
some confused message regarding several matters, apparently discovering
his difficulties, he said, " I assure you when I can get so I can speak
and say just what I like I will straighten out things for you " (p. 338).
A little later Rector says, " Give me something that I may hold him
quite clearly" (p. 338), indicating the effect of old articles on the
communicator.

When I had indicated that I did not remember the subject of our
conversation about Sweden borg, my father seemed to think that he
might have had the talk with some one else, and said, " In any case
I shall soon be able to remember all about it. I am so much nearer

(p. 335).

XLI.]

Appendix VII.

645

and so much clearer now than when I vaguely saw you here, and when
Charles tried to wake me up here" (p. 341).

In Dr. Hodgson's sitting a number of interesting instances occur.
The communicator, my father, had had much difficulty in trying to
name the contents of a spectacle case that he had been asked to name,
and after one effort he said, " Let me go a minute and return I am
very blind, and begin to feel very strange " (p. 378). Immediately
after his departure Rector says, " He seems a most intelligent fellow,
but finds it difficult for him to remain long at a time. In time he will,
however, come very near, be quite clear, and do a great work for thee,
friend " (p. 379. Cf. pp. 372 and 384). A few moments later, in
explaining the difficulty of adjusting himself to the " light," father said,
" I think of everything I ever did. All in one minute it comes to me,
then seems to leave me when I try to express something of it to you "
(p. 379). At the close of a sitting, that of February 16th, Rector
remarked of him, " Friend, he is awakening, and seems very clear this
day " (p. 390). At the next sitting my father, alluding to the name of
a medicine which he could not recall, said, " I took at one time some
preparation of oil, but the name has gone from my memory. I know
everything so well when I am not speaking to you " (p. 392). After
some conversation between Rector and Dr. Hodgson regarding the
method of obtaining certain messages and Rector's explanation of
what was necessary, Rector said, " Friend, while speaking he is like in
comparison to a very sick man, yet when we take his objects it clears
him greatly for the moment " (p. 394). A little later my father says,
after some confusion and finding that he must rest, as it were,
"I cannot really say more to you now. I am getting weak " (p. 395).

The illustrations are perhaps quite as numerous in the last eight
sittings as in the previous ones, except that in the sitting of June 8th,
which was the clearest I had, there is only one conscious recognition of
the mental state connected with communications.

In the first message on May 29th my father said, " If I fail in my
memory think not for me, but let me think my thoughts, and they will
come to me in time, past memories and all " (p. 418). A little later he
said, "I am sorry if I mistake anything but tiny
patient I will remember all " (p. 419), After a
"I am thinking over the things I snifi wIumi I tv&tf
alluding to his belief that he thought it " [tossiM)
where," but that communication was doubtful, he i
although vaguely at times," and ridded
present is the conditions which hel]'
of my brother's disposal of the burst*
about it now and everything I evei
travels so fast, and I try to get away i

646 J. H. H,jd<>Pi PLD. / [paiit

(p. 424). When I said that I did not remember the stool to Vhich he
referred, he said, " Strange, I think, but when I go out I willUhink it
all over and see what I have told you " (p. 424). A few minutes later,
when I had indicated that my stepmother knew of the knife to which
he had alluded, and that I did not, he said, " Well, that will be ail
right, but what I am anxious about is for you to know I am not for-
getting anything, only I am a little confused when I try to tell you
what I so longed to do. I think of twenty things all at once " (pp.
424-425). In a moment he disappeared for a respite, and on his return
he immediately said, "Ah, James, do not, my son, think I am degener-
ating because I am disturbed in thinking over my earthly life, but if
you will wait for me I will remember all, everything I used to know "
(p. 425). My cousin, Robert McClellan, in his first attempt to com-
municate remarked in the midst of his messages, " I am a little dazed
for the moment, but have patience with me, and I will be clear
presently " (p. 428). Alluding to the fire which had been mentioned
in an extravagant manner on December 26th (p. 324), and recognising
apparently his confusion about it, my father said, "There are some
things which I have said while speaking to you here which may seem
muddled. Forgive it, my son, and if you wish to straighten it ask me
and I will " (p. 431). A few minutes later in a confused passage about
my brother Charles, my uncle Carruthers, and apparently John
McClellan, he exclaimed, "Oh, speak, James. Help me to keep my
thoughts clear" (p. 431). After introducing my mother by name she
tried to communicate, but had to give it up with the statement, " I
want to speak of the rest, but I am too weak " (p. 432). A little later
my father said, "There is more than a million things I would like to
.speak about, but I do not seem to be able to think of them all, especi-
ally when I am here. It was not so long ago that I came here " (p. 433).
This last statement is mast interesting in connection with the fact
which we have found empirically to be true, namely, that persons not
long deceased are generally not so good communicators as those who
have passed long before. Compare his allusion to ray sister Annie
and the longer period of her decease (p. 332). After quite a clear
reference to Swedenborg on May 31st, he said, " Never mind, I am
clearing, James, and all will be well " (p. 438). Apparently my cousin
was communicating soon afterward, and in the midst of a very confused
set of messages, Rector said, " Wait a moment and he will return and
clear it up " (p. 439). The confusion seems not to have diminished,
and in a few minutes my cousin himself said, in response to a question
from me, supposing that I was dealing with the John McClellan that
was treasurer of the university I attended, " Well, of course, but you
see I am not quite clear yet, but it will surely come back to me" (p.
\ little later, in response to my query as to who was speaking,

Digitized by Google

xll]

Appendix VII.

647

apparently Rector said, " It is father who is speaking now. But he
seems a little dazed" (p. 440). Father took a respite, and on his
return he said, "I am going to try and keep my thoughts straight "
(p. 441). Later, "I do not seem to be able to express all I want"

After an allusion to myself my father said, " I am really too weak
to think more for you, James, and they seem not to hear me so well "
(p. 445). Presently he tried to say something about the Cooper inci-
dent, and in the midst of much confusion he said, " I am confused,
James, and I cannot tell you what I wish, and I will try again. I am
going now," and he disappeared (p. 445).

On June 1st Rector said near the beginning, "And we wish to say
that we were somewhat confused at the closing of the last meeting
owing to the light failing us " (p. 448). This will be apparent to the
reader if he examines the record. When father began he said soon
after, "I intended to refer to uncle John, but I was somewhat dazed,
James" (p. 448-9). In a moment he said "I am all right while
Imperator is near me, and my memory comes back to me clearer"
(p. 449). Later I tried to have him name the cause of my uncle
CalTuthers, death, and he having said pneumonia, which applied to my
uncle James McClellan, I said, " Do not worry about it now. It
will come again." My father's reply was, "I was only disturbed
because of the accident that I could not make clear, and Charles
interrupted me somewhat because he had a /ever" (p. 450). The
allusions to the accident and to my brother's fever are important
incidents, and taken in connection with the facts of the record, the
confusion is quite apparent. Later on and after a very confused set
of messages regarding my brothers he said, " I am getting tired, James,
will rest a moment and return. This is a very heavy atmosphere to be
in" (p. 454). Toward the close of the sitting, after an allusion to
myself, he said, " I seem to go back to the old days more than anything
else. Don't say you wonder at this, that, and the other, but wait, be
patient — all will be clear to you some day. If I fail in my memory,
do not say, well, if that is father he must have forgotten a great deal.
I really forget nothing, but I find it not easy to tell it all to you.
I feel as though I should choke at times (6/. p. 313), and I fail to
express my thoughts, but if fragmentary try and think the best of
them, will you ? " (p. 456). After a short communication from my
mother, who could not remain long, my father appeared and said, "Now
let me tell you one thing more, and that is about the little errors
which I may make when speaking to you. I think many things all at
once, and when I try to give mention to them, I fail somewhat "
(p. 459). After the best message that my uncle Carruthers gave, my
father broke in with the allusion to ray sister Lida, and said, " I had

(p. 443).

648

J. H. Hyslop, Ph.D.

[part

to come to straighten out uncle Clarke mind, James " (p. 460). A little
later in alluding to the organ, he ejaculated, " Oh, what was that hymn
we used to sing so often ? " I replied, " Keep calm. It will come out
all right." He then went on, " Well, I will think of it presently, and
. . . is it all clear to you, or are you confused ? " (p. 461). In the con-
fused attempt to name the relationship of the John McClellau who had
recently died, my father said, " Now wait, I am a little confused myself "
(Footnote, p. 472). At the close of the sitting he said, " I feel, think,
and know as well as I ever did, and yet I am not able in this way to
express all I think. I may give out my thoughts in fragments, but if
I do I hope they may at least comfort you a little " (p. 475). In the
communications connected with the confusion about my stepmother's
name he said, apparently alluding to her, " Yes, but it was she who
made the cap, and you had better ask her about it. Sarah, SARAH.
Let me see what is it I wish to say. Ellen. Help me. Oh, help to
[R. H. puts leather spectacle case and brown knife on table, next to
hand. Hand moves back the knife and retains the spectacle case.]
recall what I so longed to say. My own mother Nannie. I . . .
wait. I will go for a moment, wait for me, James " (p. 479). In the
name " Sarah " my father evidently recurs to the trip mentioned a little
before, as my aunt Sarah accompanied us on that trip, and forgets the cap.
The significance of the confused statement " My own mother Nannie *'
is commented on elsewhere (p. 71, and Note 77, p. 524). In a sudden
interruption of his thoughts he exclaimed, " Now what did I . . . /'
and recovering the thread immediately said, " Oh, yes, I then arranged
to go out there to live " (p. 482). Finally on June 8th, explaining his
mental condition on first coming to communicate, he said, " You see,
James, I was not wholly conscious when I came here, and I suddenly
thought of every one of my dear ones the moment I awoke " (p. 491,
Cf. p. 341).

There are many less striking passages bearing on the point which I
have Tiot included in this list. The reader may remark them for him-
self if he reads the detailed record with proper care. Besides, I have
not put down those automatisms in all cases which indicate the oncoming
syncope or unconsciousness which mark the disappearance of a com-
municator (Cf. expressions "mother," "father," etc., in my uncles
first attempt, pp. 315 and 316). Nor have I mentioned those broken
messages which clearly indicate the same fact of automatism or delirium
in any number of cases. The reader must watch for them himself.
But it is an interesting fact to remark the communicator's frequent
observation that the confusion is due to defective memory (amnesia)
and rapid thinking when he can remember. We might suppose a priori
that this would be the case from the fact that the communicator is
divested of all motor functions for inhibiting the flow of his thoughts,

Digitized by Google

XLI.]

Appendix VII.

649

while they must at the same time be adjusted to the automatic action
of the motor functions in Mrs, Piper's organism.

Apropos of the statements about rapid thinking it may be of interest
to narrate a frequent experience of my own recently. I have been
suffering from a severe attack of nervous prostration, and I noted
during it many (perhaps hundreds of them) instances in which a thought
came into my mind and I tried to hold it before attention and could
not do so. They passed in a second into irrecoverable oblivion. I say
second purposely, as no more time than this in most cases elapsed
before the incident was gone. I could remember that there was some*
thing which I wanted to remember, but the thought desired was too
evanescent, and would not respond to my effort. This is, or course, an
abnormal mental condition. I have remarked the sa^ phenomenon in
the interval between sleep and waking. The same is a frequent charac-
teristic of dreams. It is common also in functional patho-psychosis.

Digitized by VJrv

Digitized by Googl

' ■" PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research

VOLUME XVII
(CONTAINING PARTS XLII-XLV)
1 901-3

The responsibility for both the facts and the reasonings in papers
published in the Proceedings rests entirely with their authors

LONDON
R. BRIMLEY JOHNSON

4 ADAM STREET, ADELPHI, W.C.
1903

[The Rights of Translation and Reproduction are reserve^

Digitized by Google

■ fJ: W Y< i:

LLX LIBRARY

3 1904 L

OLASOOW : PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
BY ROBERT MACLXBORB AND CO.

Digitized by

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research

INDEX to VOL. XVII
(PARTS XLII-XLV)

I90I-I903

Alternations op Personality (Hypnotic) - - - 74, 285-289

American Branch of the Society for Psychical Research, List of

Members and Associates 455

Animal Magnetism, F. Podmore on the History of 391-393

Animals apparently affected by Psychical Phenomena - 317, 334, 335

Articles brought to Sittings to assist communication

77-81, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96, 101, 103-107, 109, 117, 118, 123, 127,
139, 140-146, 147, 150, 164, 157, 162, 173, 175, 177-179,
198, 202-207, 212, 213, 215, 223, 232, 234, 235, 239, 383

Arundel Disturbances, The 323

Automatic Incident, Note of! a possible — with Mrs. Thompson, by

Miss Alice Johnson 162

Automatic Writing. See Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper and Mrs.
Thompson

Automatism. V

„ Experiments of Dr. Binet 264

„ Motor, Among the Natives of Malay - - - 291-297
„ Studies in Involuntary Movements by Prof. Jastrow - 262

Automatisms (of Speech) Mediumistic .... 377, 383-385

Barker, Mrs., Sittings with Mrs. Thompson .... 138-161
** Beauchamp, The Misses," A Case of Multiplex Personality - - 74

Digitized by Google

Index to Vol. XVII.

Bennett, E. N., Review — " Magic and Religion," by Andrew Lang - 269

B6rillon, Dr., History of Hypnotism (International Congress) - - 422

Binet, Dr., "La Suggestibility," Review of 263

Blavatsky, Madame, Alleged Occult powers of 274

Blind, Dreams of the 262

Carrington, Herkward.

„ Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper - 337
„ Reply to, by Prof. Hyslop - - 360

„ Theory of Secondary Personality and Uncouscious

(subliminal) Telepathy 343-359

Carruthers, J. See Communicators.

Cartwright, Mrs. ("Control"). See Trance Phenomena of Mrs.

Thompson -

Chambers, R. Evidence as to the Mediumship of D. D. Home - - 315

Child Percipients 417, 421

" Christian Science," Alleged cures by 424, 425

Cideville Disturbances, The 320, 324-32

Clairvoyance, Lodge, Sir O. J., on 37, 54

„ Mediumistic - 70

" Clegg, Miss." See Communicators.

Collins, Sir R. H., A Personal recollection of Frederic Myers - - 11

Communicators. (Mrs, Piper), Chief references to

Carruthers, James 348, 366, 370, 381, 382

Cooper, J. and S. 386, 389

Hyslop, Annie 378

„ Charles 381,382

„ Robert 377,382,387,388

M'Clellan, R. H. 382

Pelham, G. (G. P.) 341, 377

Communicators. (Mrs. Thompson).

u Clegg, Miss " 1 17-137, 356

Pelham, G. (G. P.) 158, 159

Samuel (Suicide Case) 81-83, 86, 104-1 11

Verrall, Mrs., Relations of — Chief instances.

French Grandfather 202, 223, 224, 232

Mrs. Merriiield - - - 202, 204-208, 225, 237-239, 240, 241-243

Theodore 176, 224, 227

Mrs. Verrall (Senior) - 174, 176, 193, 223, 225, 228, 229-233, 235-237

Cossmann, Herr P. N., "Elemente der Empirische Teieologie," by,

Review of 273

Cottin, Angelique, Case of 324, 325

Coynart, M. Ch. de, u Une Sorciere au XVIII* Siecle," by, Review of 416

Crookes, Sir W., Researches of 399-401, 426

tal Vision (Mediumistic) 70

Digitized by Google

Index to Vol. XVII.

Trauce Phenomena, Telepathic Hypothesis — facts bearing on —
Unconscious (Subliminal) Telepathy Theory of,

337, 343, 360-359, 363-370

Thompson, Mrs., Similarity to 68, 74

See also Communicators
„ (HtUne Smith)—

Fraud, Possibilities of 246, 247

" Leopold n (Control) 247

"Martian" Language 247

Mistakes and Confusions 247, 248-

Becent Developments 245-

„ (Mrs. Thompson) —

„ Analysis of Evidence - - 76-87, 128-137, 138-143, 164-22*

„ Automatic Reproduction of Facts Normally Acquired

(Apparent) 65, 162, 186

„ Dramatic Play of Personality - - 79, 80-84, 87, 184-186

„ Fraud, Question of 63-66, 68, 77, 129, 131,

138-143, 162, 164, 165, 171, 172, 193, 197-210
„ Inconclusive Character of the Hodgson-Barker Series 138-161

„ Mistakes and Confusions

90, 112, 113, 119, 121, 122,123, 125, 126, 128, 133-137,
138-161, 163, 170, 179, 180, 193-197, 216, 226, 232-239, 356-
„ Personalities — Chief Reference to—

" Mrs. Cartwright " 92, 98, 104, 127, 143, 160,

168, 179, 180, 184-186, 203-210, 240

"Elsie" 87,90, 113

" Nelly " 82, 83, 85-87, 88-1 15,

116-137, 168, 184-193, 199-210, 212-220, 223-244
Characteristic Differences between - - - 168

„ Mrs. Piper, Similarity to 68, 74

„ Predictions - - - - 85, 89, 95, 100, 168-169, 218

„ Spiritistic Hypothesis — facts bearing on

73, 74, 78, 80-87, 184-186, 193, 195, 197, 223-233, 240, 24a
„ Characteristic Details, etc. —

82,94,95, 104, 107, 109, 110, 1 19, 124-126, 174-176,

180-183, 194, 196, 197, 223-226, 227-233, 240-243
„ Telepathy, Facts pointing to —

„ From the Dead 179-183, 194, 195, 197, 223-233, 240-243

„ From the Living 77-87, 90, 99, 112, 113,

117-128, 173-176, 183,186-193, 209, 212-226, 229-232
„ See also Communicators.

Tuckey, Ch. Lloyd, M.D., Reviews —

„ "Christian Science," by Dr. A. Moll 424

„ " Deuxieme Congres International de THypnotisme " - - 422
" Have you a Strong Will," by CG.Leland, - 424

"Will Power," by R. J. Ebbard 423-

Turner, Mrs. (Mrs. Thompson), Chief references to - 133-137

Digitized by Google

xii Index to Vol. XVII.

Utrbcht Hair Case (Mrs. Thompson), Chief references to

77, 88, 92, 93, 96, 101

Van Eeden, Dr. F.

Experimental Dreaming, 86,112

„ Dreams Telepathically induced - 86, 87, 112 113
„ Reviews —

" Elemente der Empirische Teleologie," by Herr Cossmann 273
" La Suggestibility," by Dr. A. Binet - 263

„ Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson, on the - - - 59, 75
„ „ Detailed Reports of Sittings - - -88-116

Verrall, Mrs. A. W.

„ Notes on Sittings with Mrs. Thompson - - 95, 100-102, 164

„ „ Analysis of Messages 166-222

„ „ Appendices to 218, 220, 223

„ Review —

" Madame Piper et la Society Anglo- Americaine pour

les Recherches Psychiques," by M. Sage - 268
Verrall, Mrs. (Senior). See Communicators.

Wallace, Dr. Abraham. Difficulties and Disappointments in Prac-
tical Psychical Research 59

Weight, Alleged Alterations of 46, 47

Wesley Family. The Epworth Disturbances - 316-323, 328-332, 333-336

Williams, Mr., Case recorded by 325

Wiilington Mill, Disturbances at 321

Wilson, J. O.," Sittings with Mrs. Thompson - 116-137

Witchcraft, Phenomeua of 320, 392, 401, 416

„ See also Malay Spiritualism.

.Zollner, Prof., Researches of 45, 46

Digitized by

CONTENTS.

PART XLII.
May, 1901.

In Memory of F. W. H. Myers,— (With Portrait.) page

I. By Oliver Lodge, D.Sc., F.R.S. 1

II. By Professor William James.— Frederic Myers' Service to

Psychology 13

III. By Professor Charles Richet 24

IV. By Frank Podmore.— F. W. H. Myers and the Society for

Psychical Research 29

V. By Walter Leaf, LittD.— F. W. H. Myers as a Man of

Letters 33

PART XLIII.
March, 1902.

Address by the President, Dr. Oliver Lodge, F.R.S. 37

PART XLIV.
June, 1902.

General Meetings 59

I. Introduction to the Reports of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

By Sir Oliver Lodge, F.R.S. 61

II. On the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. By the late

F. W. H. Myers 67

III. Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. By Dr. F. van

Erden 75

IV. A Record of Two Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. By J. O. Wilson

and J. G. Piddington 116

V. Report on Six Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. By Richard

Hodgson, LL.D. 138

VL Note on a Possibly Automatic Incident observed in the case of

Mrs. Thompson. By Alice Johnson - 162
VII. Notes on the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. By Mrs.

A. W. Verrall 164

Supplement.— Reviews :

Professor Flournoy's " Nouvelles Observations sur un Cas de Som-

nambulisme avec Glossolalie." By F. C. S. Schiller - - 245
Professor Jastrow's " Fact and Fable in Psychology." By F. N.

Hales 262

Digitized by Google

iv Contents

Supplement. — Reviews : page
Dr. A. Binet's " La Suggestibility." By Dr. F. van Eedex - 263
Dr. Osgood Mason's 44 Hypnotism and Suggestion in Therapeutics,

Education and Reform." By the Hon. E. Feildino - - 265
M. Sage's " Madame Piper et la Society Anglo- Americaine pour

les Recherches Psychiques." By Mrs. A. W. Yerrall - 268
Mr. Andrew Lang's " Magic and Religion." By E. N. Bennett - 269
Mr. H. G. Hutchinson's u Dreams and their Meanings." By N. W.

Thomas 272

Herr P. N. Cossraanu's " Elemente der enipirischen Teleologie."

By Dr. F. van Ekden 273

Mr. G. C. Hubbell'8 " Fact and Fancy in Spiritualism, Theosophy,

and Psychical Research." By N. W. Thomas - 274

PART XLV.
February, 1903.

General Meetings, 277

I. Some Experiments in Hypnotism. By 44 Edward Greenwood " 279
II. Malay Spiritualism. By Walter Skbat .... 290

III. The Poltergeist, Historically Considered. By Andrew Lano - 305
Remarks on Mr Lang's Paper. By Frank Podmore - - 327
Further Remarks. By Andrew Lano - - - - 333

IV. Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper. By Herb-

ward Carrinoton 337

Remarks on Mr. Carrington's Paper. By Professor J. H.

Htslop 360

On Professor Hyslop's Report on his Sittings with Mrs. Piper.

By Frank Podmore - - 374

Mr. F. Podmore's 44 Modern Spiritualism : a History and a Criti-
cism." By Alice Johnson 389

Professor W. James' 44 The Varieties of Religious Experience."

By F. C. S. Schiller 403

M. Maurice Maeterlinck's 44 Le Temple Enseveli." By J. G.

PlDDlNGTON 41 1

M. Ch. de Coynart's " Une Sorciere au XVIII' Siecle." By J. G.

PlDDlNGTON - , - 416

<(Deuxieme Congres International dc l'Hypnotisme. Comptes

Rendus," By Dr. C. Lloyd Tuckey 422 .

Mr. R. J. Ebbard's 44 Will-Power." By Dr. C. Lloyd Tuckey - 423
M. C. G. Leland's 44 Have You a Strong Will ? " By Dr. C. Lloyd

Tuckey 424

Dr. A. MolPs 44 Christian Science, Medicine, and Occultism." By

Dr. C. Lloyd Tuckey 424

Dr. C. G. Jung's 44 Zur Psychologie und Pathologie sogenannter

occulter Phanomeue." By N. W. Thomas - 42f>

Mr. G. Spiller's 44 The Mind of Man." By N. W. Thomas - - 426

Edmund Gurney Library : Supplementary Catalogue 428

Officers and Council for 1902, 429

List of Members and Associates 430

List of Members and Associates of the American Branch - - - 455

Digitized by

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research.

PART XLII.

IN MEMORY OF F. W. H. MYERS.
By Oliver Lodge, D.Sc., F.R.S.

'ApVVfM€VOS f)V T6 lfsVX7ly Ka* VOOTOV €TCUpU)V.

Who would have thought a year ago, when our Secretary and joint
Founder at length consented to be elected President, that we should
so soon be lamenting his decease ?

When Henry Sidgwick died, the Society was orphaned, and now it is
left desolate. Of the original chief founders, Professor Barrett alone
remains; for Mr. Podmore, the only other member of the first
Council still remaining on it, was not one of the actual founders of
the Society. Neither the wisdom of Sidgwick nor the energy and
power of Myers can by any means be replaced. Our loss is certain,
but the blow must not be paralysing. Rather it must stimulate those
that remain to fresh exertions, must band us together determined
that a group of workers called together for a pioneering work, for
the founding and handing on to posterity of a new science, must not
be permitted to disband and scatter till their work is done. That
work will not be done in our lifetime; it must continue with what
energy and wisdom we can muster, and we must be faithful to
the noble leaders who summoned us together and laid this burden to
our charge.

I, unworthy, am called to this Chair. I would for every reason that
it could have been postponed ; but it is the wish of your Council ; I am
told that it was the wish of Myers, and I regard it as a duty from
which I must not shrink.

The last communication which my predecessor made was in memory
of Henry Sidgwick : my own first communication must be in memory
of Frederic Myers.

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

[part

To how many was he really known 1 I wonder. Known in a sense
he was to all, except the unlettered and the ignorant. Known in
reality he was to very few. Bat to the few who were privileged to
know him, his is a precious memory : a memory which will not decay
with the passing of the years. I was honoured with his intimate
friendship. I esteem it one of the honours of my life.

To me, though not to me alone, falls the duty of doing some
justice to his memory. I wtmld that I might be inspired for the
task.

I was not one of those who knew him as a youth, and my acquaint-
ance with him ripened gradually. Our paths in life were wide apart,
and our powers very different : our powers, but not our tastes. He
could instruct me in literature and most other things, I could instruct
him in science ; he was the greedier learner of the two. I never knew
a man more receptive, nor one with whom it was a greater pleasure to
talk. His grasp of science was profound : I do not hesitate to say it,
though many who do not really know him will fail to realise that this
was possible ; nor was he fully conscious of it himself. Even into
some of the more technical details, when they were properly pre-
sented, he could and did enter, and his mind was in so prepared a
state that any fact once sown in it began promptly to take root and
bud. It was not a detailed knowledge of science that he possessed, of
course, but it was a grasp, a philosophic grasp, of the meaning and
bearing of it all, not unlike the accurately comprehending grasp of
Tennyson ; and again and again in his writings in our Proceedings do
we find the facts which his mind had thus from many sources absorbed
utilised for the purpose of telling and brilliant illustrations, and made
to contribute each its quota to his Cosmic scheme.

For that is what he was really doing, all through this last quarter
of a century : he was laying the foundation for a cosmic philosophy,
a scheme of existence as large and comprehensive and well founded
as any that have appeared.

Do I mean that he achieved such a structure) I do not A
philosophy of that kind is not to be constructed by the labour of
one man, however brilliant; and Myers laboured almost solely on
the psychological side. He would be the first to deprecate any
exaggeration of what he has done, but he himself would have
admitted this, — that he strenuously and conscientiously sought facts,

xlil] In Memory of F. W. H. Myers.

and sought to construct his cosmic foundation by their aid and in
their light, and not in the dark gropings of his own unaided intelli-
gence. A wilderness of facts must be known to all philosophers;
the true philosopher is he who recognises their underlying principle
and sees the unity running through them all.

This unity among the more obscure mental processes Myers saw, as
it seems to me, more clearly than any other psychologist ; but what
right have I to speak on psychological problems? I admit that I
have no right— I only crave indulgence to show the thing as it
appears to me. For authoritative psychology we must hear Professor
William James. He will contribute a memoir, but as I write now
I have heard no word from William James. I express only what
has long been in my mind.

To me it has seemed that most philosophers suffer from a dearth
of facts. In the past necessarily so, for the scientific exploration
of the physical universe is, as it were, a thing of yesterday. Our
cosmic outlook is very different from that of the ancients, is different
oven from that of philosophers of the middle of the century, before
the spectroscope, before Darwin and Wallace, before many discoveries
connected with less familiar household words than these: in the
matter of physical science alone the most recent philosopher must
needs have some advantage. But this is a small item in his total
outfit, mental phenomena must contribute the larger part of that;
and the facts of the mind have been open — it is generally assumed —
from all antiquity. This is in great degree true, and philosophers
have always recognised and made use of these facts, especially those
of the mind in its normal state. Yet in modern science we realise
that to understand a thing thoroughly it must be observed not only
in its normal state but under all the conditions into which it can be
thrown by experiment, every variation being studied and laid under
contribution to the general understanding of the whole.

And, I ask, did any philosopher ever know the facts of the mind
in health and in disease more profoundly, with more detailed and
intimate knowledge, drawn from personal inquiry, and from the
testimony of all the savants of Europe, than did Frederic Myers)
He laid under contribution every abnormal condition studied in the
Salp£tri&re, in hypnotic trance, in delirium, every state of the mind
in placidity and in excitement. He was well acquainted with the

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

[part

curious facts of multiple personality, of clairvoyant vision, of hallucina-
tions, automatisms, self-suggestion, of dreams, and of the waking
visions of genius.

It will be said that Hegel, and to some extent Kant also, as well as
other philosophers, recognised some ultra-normal mental manifestations,
and allowed a place for clairvoyance in their scheme. All honour to
those great men for doing so, in advance of the science of their
time; but how could they know all that we know to-day? Fifty
years ago the facts even of hypnotism were not by orthodox science
accepted; such studies as were made, were made almost surreptitiously,
here and there, by some truth-seeker clear-sighted enough to outstep
the fashion of his time and look at things with his own eyes. But
only with difficulty could he publish his observations, and doubtless
many were lost for fear of ridicule and the contempt of his professional

But now it is different : not so different as it ought to be, even yet ;
but facts previously considered occult are now investigated and re-
corded and published in every country of Europe. The men who
observe them are too busy to unify them ; they each contribute their
portion, but they do not grasp the whole : the grasping of the whole
is the function of a philosopher. I assert that Myers was that
philosopher.

Do I then in my own mind place him on a pedestal by the side of
Plato and Kant 1 God forbid ! I am not one to juggle with great
names and apportion merit to the sages of mankind. Myers1 may not
be a name which will sound down the ages as an achiever and builder
of a system of truth ; but I do claim for him that as an earnest pioneer
and industrious worker and clear-visioned student, he has laid a
foundation, perhaps not even a foundation but a corner-stone, on
ground more solid than has ever been available before; aud I hold
that the great quantity of knowledge now open to any industrious
-truth-seeker gives a man of modest merit and of self-distrustful powers,
a lever, a fulcrum, more substantial than those by which the, great men
of antiquity and of the middle ages were constrained to accomplish
their mighty deeds.

Myers has left behind two unpublished volumes on Human
Personality, has left them, I believe, in charge of Dr. Hodgson — has
left them, alas, not finished, not finally finished ; how nearly finished

brethren.

xlii.] In Memory of F. W. H. Myers.

I do not know. I saw fractions of them some time ago as they left his
pen, and to me they seemed likely to be an epoch-making work.

They are doubtless finished enough: more might have been done,
they might have been better ordered, more highly polished, more
neatly dove-tailed, had he lived ; but they represent for all time his
real life work, that for which he was willing to live laborious days;
they represent what he genuinely conceived to be a message of moment
to humanity : they are his legacy to posterity ; and in the light of the
facts contained in them he was willing and even eager to die.

The termination of his life, which took place at Rome in presence
of his family, was physically painful owing to severe attacks of difficult
breathing which constantly preceded sleep ; but his bearing under it
all was so patient and elevated as to extort admiration from the
excellent Italian doctor who attended him; and in a private letter
by an eye-witness his departure was described as "a spectacle for
the Gods ; it was . most edifying to see how a genuine conviction of
immortality can make a man indifferent to what to ordinary people
is so horrible."

In the intervals of painful difficulty of breathing he quoted from one
of his own poems ("The Renewal of Youth," one which he pre-
ferred to earlier and better-known poems of his, and from it alone
I quote) :

" Ah, welcome then that hour which bids thee lie
In anguish of thy last infirmity !
Welcome the toss for ease, the gasp for air,

Death he did not dread. That is true; and his clear and happy
faith was the outcome entirely of his scientific researches. The years of
struggle and effort and systematic thought had begotten in him a con-
fidence as absolute and supreme as is to be found in the holiest martyr
or saint. By this I mean that it was not possible for any one to have
a more absolute and childlike confidence that death was a mere
physical event To him it was an adversity which must happen
to the body, but it was not one of those evil things which may
assault and hurt the soul.

An important and momentous event truly, even as

The visage drawn, and Hippocratic stare ;
Welcome the darkening dream, the lost control,
The sleep, the swoon, the arousal of the soul ! "

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

[part

temporary lapse of consciousness, even as trance may be ; a waking
up to strange and new surroundings, like a more thorough emigration
than any that can be undertaken on a planet ; but a destruction or
lessening of power no whit Rather an enhancement of existence,
an awakening from this earthly dream, a casting off of the trammels
of the flesh, and putting on of a body more adapted to the needs
of an emancipated spirit, a wider field of service, a gradual oppor-
tunity of re-uniting with the many who have gone before. So he
believed, on what he thought a sure foundation of experience, and
in the strength of that belief he looked forward hopefully to perennial
effort and unending progress:

Such was his faith : by this he lived, and in this he died. Religious
men in all ages have had some such faith, perhaps a more
restful and less strenuous faith ; but to Myers the faith did not
come by religion: he would have described himself as one who
walked by sight and knowledge rather than by faith, and his eager
life-long struggle for knowledge was in order that he might by no
chance be mistaken.

To some, conviction of this kind would be impossible — they are
the many who know not what science is; to others, conviction of
this kind seems unnecessary — they are the favoured few who feel
that they have grasped all needed truth by revelation or by intuition.
But by a few here and there, even now, this avenue to knowledge
concerning the unseen is felt to be open. Myers believed that
hereafter it would become open to all. He knew that the multitude
could appreciate science no more, perhaps less, than they can
appreciate religion; but he knew further that when presently any
truth becomes universally accepted by scientific men, it will penetrate
downwards and be accepted by ordinary persons, as they now accept
any other established doctrine, such as the planetary position of the
earth in the solar system or the evolution of species, not because
they have really made a study of the matter, but because it is a
part of the atmosphere into which they were born.

Say, could aught else content thee ? which were best,

After so brief a battle an endless rest,

Or the ancient conflict rather to renew,

By the old deeds strengthened mightier deeds to do V

XLII.]

In Memory of F. W. H. Myers.

If continuity of existence and intelligence across the gulf of death
really can ever be thus proved, it surely is a desirable and worthy
object for science to aim at. There be some religious men of little
faith who resent this attempted intrusion of scientific proof into their
arena ; as if they had a limited field which could be encroached upon.
Those men do not realise, as Myers did, the wealth of their inheritance.
They little know the magnitude of the possibilities of the universe, the
unimagined scope of the regions still, and perhaps for ever, beyond the
grasp of what we now call science.

There was a little science in my youth which prided itself upon being
positive knowledge, and sought to pour scorn upon the possibility, say,
of prayer or of any mode of communication between this world and a
purely hypothetical other. Honest and true and brilliant though
narrow men held these beliefs and promulgated these doctrines for a
time : they did good service in their day by clearing away some super-
stition, and, with their healthy breezy common-sense, freeing the mind
from cant, — that is, from the conventional utterance of phrases embody-
ing beliefs only half held. I say no word against the scientific men of
that day, to whom were opposed theologians of equal narrowness and
of a more bitter temper. But their warlike energy, though it made
them effective crusaders, left their philosophy defective and their science
unbalanced. It has not fully re-attained equilibrium yet. With Myers
the word science meant something much larger, much more compre-
hensive : it meant a science and a philosophy and a religion combined.
It meant, as it meant to Newton, an attempt at a true cosmic scheme.
His was no purblind outlook on a material universe limited and con-
ditioned by our poor senses. He had an imagination wider than that
of most men. Myers spoke to me once of the possibility that the parts
of an atom move perhaps inside the atom in astronomical orbits, as the
planets move in the solar system, each spaced out far away from others
and not colliding, but all together constituting the single group or system
we call the atom, — a microcosm akin to the visible cosmos, which again
might be only an atom of some larger whole. I was disposed at that
time to demur. I should not demur now; the progress of science
within the last year or two makes the first part of this thesis even
probable. On the latter part I have still nothing to say. On the former
part much, but not now.

Nor was it only upon material things that he looked with the eye of

Digitized by Google

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

[part

prescience and of hope. I never knew a man so hopeful concerning his
ultimate destiny. He once asked me whether I would barter, if it were
possible, my unknown destiny, whatever it might be, for as many aeons
of unmitigated and wise terrestrial happiness as might last till the
fading of the sun, and then an end.

He would not ! No limit could satisfy him. That which he was
now he only barely knew, — for to him not the whole of each personality
is incarnate in this mortal flesh, the subliminal self still keeps watch
and ward beyond the threshold, and is in touch always with another
life, — but that which he might come to be hereafter he could by no
means guess : o&r<o €<f>av€p(aOr) ri co-o/tc^a. Gradually and perhaps
through much suffering, from which indeed he sensitively shrank,
but through which nevertheless he was ready to go, he believed that
a being would be evolved out of him, — "even," as he would say, "out
of him" — as much higher in the scale of creation as he now was above
the meanest thing that crawls.

Nor yet an end. Infinity of infinities — he could conceive no end, of
space or time or existence, nor yet of development : though an end of
the solar system and therefore of mankind seemed to him comparatively
imminent :

u That hour may come when Earth no more can keep
Tireless her year-long voyage thro' the deep ;
Nay, when all planets, sucked and swept in one,
Feed their rekindled solitary sun ; —
Nay, when all suns that shine, together hurled,
Crash in one infinite and lifeless world : —
Yet hold thou still, what worlds soe'er may roll,
Naught bear they with them master of the soul ;
In all the eternal whirl, the cosmic stir,
All the eternal is akin to her ;
She shall endure, and quicken, and live at last,
When all save souls has perished in the past"

Infinite progress, infinite harmony, infinite love, these were the
things which filled and dominated his existence : limits for him were
repellent and impossible. Limits conditioned by the flesh and by
imperfection, by rebellion, by blindness, and by error, — these are
obvious, these he admitted and lamented to the full; but ultimate
limits, impassable barriers, cessation of development, a highest in the

Digitized by Google

XUI.]

In Memory of F. W. H. Myers.

scale of being beyond which it was impossible to go, — these he
would not admit, these seemed to him to contradict all that he had
gleaned of the essence and meaning of existence.

Principalities and Powers on and on, up and up, without limit now
and for ever, this was the dominant note of his mind ; and if he seldom
used the word God except in poetry, or employed the customary
phrases, it was because everything was so supremely real to him;
and God, the personified totality of existence, too blinding a con-
ception to conceive.

For practical purposes something less lofty served, and he could
return from cosmic speculations to the simple everyday life, which is for
all of us the immediate business in hand, and which, if patiently
pursued, seemed to him to lead to more than could be desired or
deserved :

In all this I do not say he was right — who am I to say that such a
man was right or wrong ? — but it was himself : it was not so much his
creed as himself. He with his whole being and personality, at first
slowly and painfully with many rebuffs and after much delay and
hesitation, but in the end richly and enthusiastically, rose to this
height of emotion, of conviction, and of serenity ; though perhaps to
few he showed it.

" Either we cannot or we hardly dare
Breathe forth that vision into earthly air ;
And if ye call us dreamers, dreamers then
Be we esteemed amid you waking men ;
Hear us or hear not as ye choose ; but we
Speak as we can, and are what we must be."

Not that he believed easily : let no man think that his faith came
easily and cost him nothing. He has himself borne witness to the
struggle, the groanings that could not be uttered. His was a keenly
emotional nature. What he felt, he felt strongly ; what he believed,
he believed in no half-hearted or conventional manner. When he
doubted, he doubted fiercely ; but the pain of the doubt only stimulated

Live thou and love ! so best and only so

Can thy one soul into the One Soul flow, —
Can thy small life to Life's great centre flee,
And thou be nothing, and the Lord in thee.'!

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

[pakt

him to effort, to struggle ; to know at least the worst and doubt no
longer. He was content with no half knowledge, no clouded faith, he
must know or he must suffer, and in the end he believed that he knew.

is a line in his own metre, though not a quotation, which runs in my
mind as descriptive of him ; suggested doubtless by that line from the
Odyssey which, almost in a manner at his own request, I have placed in
the fore-front of this essay. For he speaks of himself in an in-
frequent autobiographical sentence as having " often a sense of great
solitude, and of an effort beyond my strength ; ' striving,' — as Homer
says of Odysseus in a line which I should wish graven on some tablet
in my memory, — 'striving to save my own soul and my comrades'
homeward way.' *

But the years of struggle and effort brought in the end ample
recompense, for they gave him a magnificent power to alleviate distress.
He was able to communicate something of his assurance to others, so
that more than one bereaved friend learned to say with him :

" What matter if thou hold thy loved ones prest
Still with close arms upon thy yearning breast,
Or with purged eyes behold them hand iu hand
Come in a vision from that lovely land, —
Or only with great heart and spirit sure
Deserve them and await them and endure ;
Knowing well, no shocks that fall, no years that flee,
Can sunder God from these, or God from thee ;
Nowise so far thy love from theirs can roam
As past the mansions of His endless home."

To how many a sorrowful heart his words have brought hope and
comfort, letters, if ever published, will one day prove. The deep
personal conviction behind his message drove it home with greater
force, nor did it lose influence because it was enfranchised from
orthodox traditions, and rang with no hollow professional note.

If he were right, and if his legacy to the race is to raise it towards
any fraction of his high hopes and feeling of certainty in the dread
presence of death : then indeed we may be thankful for his existence,
and posterity yet unborn will love and honour his memory, as we do

Seeker after Truth and Helper of his comrades

XLII.]

In Memory of F. W. H. Myers.

[Postscript to Dr. Lodge's Paper.]
Sir Robert H. Collins — an early friend of Myers' — sends me the
following sketch :

"I first saw Frederic Myers in the early summer of 1864. He was
leaning over the side of a steamer in the harbour of the Piraeus,
reciting poetry to a companion. We became friends on the ship, and
travelled together to Messina, Palermo, Naples, and Rome. This was-
his ' Hellenism ' period, and I have never forgotten his enthusiasm,
whether we walked in the country outside Messina and Palermo, where,
he said, all sights and sounds brought Virgil to his memory, or visited
Art Galleries, where he would stand rooted before statues such as the
Faun of Praxiteles.

"At his special desire, we bathed in the troubled waters between
Scylla and Charybdis.

"When, in 1867, I became tutor to the late Duke of Albany, Myera
learned to know the Duke, and the two remained firm and constant
friends till the latter's death. His In Memoriam notice of the Duke
will attest to this. He was at Windsor Castle at the time of Princes*
Louise's wedding, and wrote some lines on the event. I do not think
either these lines, or a short poem he wrote by the Queen's request at
the time of the late Duke's confirmation, have been published.

" During the phase of mind under the influence of which Myers wrote
St. Paul, I had frequent opportunities of being with him, and was much
struck with the intensity of his feelings at this time. A common friend
remarked that his face wore ' a chastened look.' He seemed to have
the power, if not of carrying his friends all the way with him in the
special feelings by which he was himself swayed, at least of imbuing
them with something of his attitude of mind. That he was unconscious

of the influence of his personality is shown tj^tyy
ing to me once, that it wa* iHan^/ tint
similar chunks of tliou^j ^nie per

"Hia most striking ehM \mJ
and ardour with which he T
small that had a jfial inter*
power he
presenting I
of his

ingenuously reraark-
^eemed to undergo

In Memory of F. W. H. Myers.

[PAW

On Myers as a man of letters the following appreciation has been
written at my request by my colleague, the Professor of
Literature in the University of Birmingham :

" If students of literature hold resolutely by the touchstone of style, it
is because they find in it a promise of all the major virtues, a sure mark
of the distinguished mind. Amid to-day's welter of uncontrolled and
purposeless verbiage, such work as that of Myers is doubly precious ;
unimpaired by contact with what is weak and worthless in contemporary
writing, it not only shines in itself but carries on the noble traditions
of our literature. As a man of letters, his distinction was in part due
to the breadth and refinement of his scholarship, which could suffer no
conventional accent, since in his ears ever sounded the language of the
poets who were his lifelong companions, and since he moved along the
•difficult paths of philosophical speculation as one familiar with the high
things of the intellectual world.

"His style, always choice, always charged, even surcharged, with
thought, kindled when it touched a subject near his heart into a flame
of brilliance ; his phrases vibrated in unison with his feelings. Eminent
as scholar, psychologist, poet, he has his place as a critic of poetry
in the company of those whose altars smoke with a fire derived from
Heaven. He took his readers captive, not only because his knowledge
was profound, his instinct unfailing, but because by reason of the
emotional and imaginative sympathy with his author of which he was
capable, there is heard in him the note of an almost passionate appre-
ciation, of which I believe the palmary example in our language is the
Essay on Virgil. Myers claimed for poetry, as indeed for all high art
— and I do not think the future will disallow the claim — that though
its oracles are not those of a passionless reason or a studious enquiry,
they are none the less authentic revelations that well up from some
unfathomed depth of being, the divine enclasping region where are
wrought the warp and the woof of our mortal life and destiny —
Nec mortal* sonans, adfiata est numine quando Jam propiore dei. There
are few, I think, among those who concern themselves seriously with
literature who have not felt his charm, his dignity, his inspiration,
and who have not compared with some disquietude their own coldness
with his strenuous allegiance to the best of which the mind of man
has vision. " W. Macnkile Dixon."

xlii.] Myers's Service to Psychology. 1$

II.

FREDERIC MYERS'S SERVICE TO PSYCHOLOGY.

By Professor William James.

On this memorial occasion it is from English hearts and tongues
belonging, as I never had the privilege of belonging, to the immediate
environment of our lamented President, that discourse of him as a
man and as a friend must come. It is for those who participated in
the endless drudgery of his labours for our Society to tell of the high
powers he showed there ; and it is for those who have something of
his burning interest in the problem of our human destiny to estimate
his success in throwing a little more light into its dark recesses. To
me it has been deemed best to assign a colder task. Frederic Myers
was a psychologist who worked upon lines hardly admitted by the
more academic branch of the profession to be legitimate ; and as for
some years I bore the title of * Professor of Psychology/ the suggestion
has been made (and by me gladly welcomed) that I should spend my
portion of this hour in defining the exact place and rank which we
must accord to him as a cultivator and promoter of the science of
the Mind.

Brought up entirely upon literature and history, and interested at
first in poetry and religion chiefly; never by nature a philosopher
in the technical sense of a man forced to pursue consistency among
concepts for the mere love of the logical occupation; not crammed
with science at college, or trained to scientific method by any passage
through a laboratory; Myers had as it were to re-create his per-
sonality before he became the wary critic of evidence, the skilful
handler of hypothesis, the learned neurologist and omnivorous reader
of biological and cosmological matter, with whom in later years we
were acquainted. The transformation came about because he needed
to be all these things in order to work successfully at the problem
that lay near his heart ; and the ardour of his will and the richness.

Digitized by Google

Professor William James.

[part

of his intellect are proved by the success with which he underwent
bo unusual a transformation.

The problem, as you know, was that of seeking evidence for human
immortality. His contributions to psychology were incidental to that
research, and would probably never have been made had he not
•entered on it. But they have a value for Science entirely inde-
pendent of the light they shed upon that problem; and it is quite
apart from it that I shall venture to consider them.

If we look at the history of mental science we are immediately
struck by diverse tendencies among its several cultivators, the conse-
quence being a certain opposition of schools and some repugnance among
their disciples. Apart from the great contrasts between minds that
are teleological or biological and minds that are mechanical, between
the animi8ts and the associationists in psychology, there is the entirely
different contrast between what I will call the classic-academic and the
romantic type of imagination. The former has a fondness for clean
pure lines and noble simplicity in its constructions. It explains things
by as few principles as possible and is intolerant of either nondescript
facts or clumsy formulas. The facts must lie in a neat assemblage, and
the psychologist must be enabled to cover them and * tuck them in 1 as
safely under his system as a mother tucks her babe in under the down
coverlet on a winter night. Until quite recently all psychology,
whether animistic or associationistic, was written on classic-academic
lines. The consequence was that the human mind, as it is figured in
this literature, was largely an abstraction. Its normal adult traits were
recognised. A sort of sunlit terrace was exhibited on which it took its
exercise. But where that terrace stopped, the mind stopped; and
there was nothing farther left to tell of in this kind of philosophy but
the brain and the other physical facts of nature on the one hand, and
the absolute metaphysical ground of the universe on the other.

But of late years the terrace has been overrun by romantic improvers,
and to pass to their work is like going from classic to Gothic architec-
ture, where few outlines are pure and where uncouth forms lurk in the
shadows. A mass of mental phenomena are now seen in the shrubbery
beyond the parapet Fantastic, ignoble, hardly human, or frankly non-
human are some of these new candidates for psychological description.
The menagerie and the madhouse, the nursery, the prison, and the

XLII.]

Myers's Service to Psychology.

hospital, have been made to deliver up their material. The world of
mind is shown as something infinitely more complex than was sus-
pected ; and whatever beauties it may still possess, it has lost at any
rate the beauty of academic neatness.

But despite the triumph of romanticism, psychologists as a rule have
still some lingering prejudice in favour of the nobler simplicities.
Moreover there are social prejudices which scientific men themselves
obey. The word 'hypnotism' has been trailed about in the newspapers
so that even we ourselves rather wince at it, and avoid occasions of its
use. ' Mesmerism/ ' clairvoyance/ ' medium/ — horrescimus referenies/ —
and with all these things, infected by their previous mystery-mongering
discoverers, even our best friends had rather avoid complicity. For
instance, I invite eight of my scientific colleagues severally to come to my
house at their own time, and sit with a medium for whom the evidence
already published in our Proceedings had been most noteworthy.
Although it means at worst the waste of the hour for each, five of
them decline the adventure. I then beg the ' Commission ' connected
with the chair of a certain learned psychologist in a neighbouring
university to examine the same medium, whom Mr. Hodgson and I
offer at our own expense to send and leave with them. They also
have to be excused from any such entanglement I advise another
psychological friend to look into this medium's case, but he replies
that it is useless, for if he should get such results as I report, he would
(being suggestible) simply believe himself hallucinated. When I
propose as a remedy that he should remain in the background and take
notes, whilst his wife has the sitting, he explains that he can never
consent to his wife's presence at such performances. This friend of
mine writes ex cathedra on the subject of psychical research, declaring
(I need hardly add) that there is nothing in it; the chair of the psycho-
logist with the Commission was founded by a spiritist, partly with a
view to investigate mediums ; and one of the five colleagues who declined
my invitation is widely quoted as an effective critic of our evidence.
So runs the world away ! I should not indulge in the personality and
triviality of such anecdotes, were it not that they paint the temper of
our time, a temper which, thanks to Frederic Myers more than to
any one, will certainly be impossible after this generation. Myers was,
I think, decidedly exclusive and intolerant by nature. But his keen-
ness for truth carried him into regions where either intellectual or

Professor William James.

[part

social squeamishness would have been fatal, so he 'mortified' his
amour propre, unclubbed himself completely, and became a model of
patience, tact, and humility wherever investigation required it Both
his example and his body of doctrine will make this temper the only
one henceforward scientifically respectable.

If you ask me how his doctrine has this effect, I answer: By
co-ordinating / For Myers' great principle of research was that in order
to understand any one species of fact we ought to have all the species
of the same general class of fact before us. So he took a lot of
scattered phenomena, some of them recognised as reputable, others
outlawed from science, or treated as isolated curiosities; he made
series of them, filled in the transitions by delicate hypotheses or
analogies, and bound them together in a system by his bold inclusive
conception of the Subliminal Self, so that no one can now touch one
part of the fabric without finding the rest entangled with it. Such
vague terms of apperception as psychologists have hitherto been satis-
fied with using for most of these phenomena, as 'fraud/ 'rot/
'rubbish/ will no more be possible hereafter than 'dirt' is possible
as a head of classification in chemistry, or 'vermin' in zoology.
Whatever they are, they are things with a right to definite description
and to careful observation.

I cannot but account this as a great service rendered to Psychology.
I expect that Myers will ere long distinctly figure in mental science as
the radical leader in what I have called the romantic movement.
Through him for the first time, psychologists are in possession of their
full material, and mental phenomena are set down in an adequate
inventory. To bring unlike things thus together by forming series-
of which the intermediary terms connect the extremes, is a procedure
much in use by scientific men. It is a first step made towards
securing their interest in the romantic facts, that Myers should have
shown how easily this familiar method can be applied to their study.

Myers' conception of the extensiveness of the Subliminal Self quite
overturns the classic notion of what the human mind consists in. The-
8upraliminal region, as Myers calls it, the classic-academic conscious-
ness, which was once alone considered either by associationists or
animists, figures in his theory as only a small segment of the psychic
spectrum. It is a special phase of mentality, teleologically evolved for
adaptation to our natural environment, and forms only what he calls.

XLII.]

Myers's Service to Psychology.

a * privileged case ' of personality. The outlying Subliminal, according
to him, represents more fully our central and abiding being.

I think the words subliminal and supraliminal unfortunate, but they
were probably unavoidable. I think, too, that Myers's belief in the
ubiquity and great extent of the Subliminal will demand a far larger
number of facts than sufficed to persuade him, before the next
generation of psychologists shall become persuaded. He regards the
Subliminal as the enveloping mother-consciousness in each of us, from
which the consciousness we wot of is precipitated like a crystal. But
whether this view get confirmed or get overthrown by future inquiry,
the definite way in which Myers has thrown it down is a new and
specific challenge to inquiry. For half a century now, psychologists
have fully admitted the existence of a subliminal mental region, under
the name either of unconscious cerebration or of the involuntary life ;
but they have never definitely taken up the question of the extent of
this region, never sought explicitly to map it out. Myers definitely
attacks this problem, which, after him, it will be impossible to ignore.

What is the precise constitution of the Subliminal — such is the problem
which deserves to figure in our Science hereafter as the problem of
Myers ; and willy-nilly, inquiry must follow on the path which it has
opened up. But Myers has not only propounded the problem defin
itely, he has also invented definite methods for its solution. Post-
hypnotic suggestion, crystal-gazing, automatic writing and trance-speech,
the willing-game, etc., are now, thanks to him, instruments of research,
reagents like litmus paper or the galvanometer, for revealing what
would otherwise be hidden. These are so many ways of putting
the Subliminal on tap. Of course without the simultaneous work
on hypnotism and hysteria independently begun by others, he could
not have pushed his own work so far. But he is so far the only
generalizer of the problem and the only user of all the methods;
and even though his theory of the extent of the Subliminal should
have to be subverted in the end, its formulation will, I am sure,
figure always as a rather momentous event in the history of our
Science.

Any psychologist who should wish to read Myers out of the pro-
fession— and there are probably still some who would be glad to do so
to-day — is committed to a definite alternative. Either he must say
that we knew all about the subliminal region before Myers took it up,

Professor William James.

[part

or be must say that it is certain that states of super-normal cognition
form no part of its content. The first contention would he too absurd.
The second one remains more plausible. There are many first hand
investigators into the Subliminal who, not having themselves met with
anything super-normal, would probably not hesitate to call all the
reports of it erroneous, and who would limit the Subliminal to dissolutive
phenomena of consciousness exclusively, to lapsed memories, sub-
conscious sensations, impulses and phobias, and the like. Messrs. Janet
and Binet, for aught I know, may hold some such position as this.
Against it Myers's thesis would stand sharply out Of the Subliminal,
he would say, we can give no ultra-simple account : there are discrete
regions in it, levels separated by critical points of transition, and no
one formula holds true of them all. And any conscientious psycholo-
gist ought, it seems to me, to see that, since these multiple modifica-
tions of personality are only beginning to be reported and observed
with care, it is obvious that a dogmatically negative treatment of them
must be premature, and that the problem of Myers still awaits us as
the problem of far the deepest moment for our actual psychology,
whether his own tentative solutions of certain parts of it be correct
or not.

Meanwhile, descending to detail, one cannot help admiring the great
originality with which Myers wove such an extraordinarily detached
and discontinuous series of phenomena together. Unconscious cerebra-
tion, dreams, hypnotism, hysteria, inspirations of genius, the willing-
game, planchette, crystal-gazing, hallucinatory voices, apparitions of the
dying, medium-trances, demoniacal possession, clairvoyance, thought-
transference — even ghosts and other facts more doubtful — these things
form a chaos at first sight most discouraging. No wonder that
scientists can think of no other principle of unity among them than
their common appeal to men's perverse propensity to superstition. Yet
Myers has actually made a system of them, stringing them continuously
upon a [perfectly legitimate objective hypothesis, verified in some cases
and extended to others by analogy. Taking the name automatism
from the phenomenon of automatic writing — I am not sure that he
may not himself have been the first so to baptize this latter pheno-
menon— he made one great simplification at a stroke by treating
hallucinations and active impulses under a common head, as sensory
and motor automatisms* Automatism he then conceived broadly as a

XLIL]

Myers's Service to Psychology.

message of any kind from the Subliminal to the Supraliminal. And he
went a step farther in his hypothetic interpretation, when he insisted
on ' symbolism ' as one of the ways in which one stratum of our
personality will often interpret the influences of another. Obssessive
thoughts and delusions, as well as voices, visions, and impulses, thus
fall subject to one mode of treatment. To explain them, we must
explore the Subliminal ; to cure them we must practically influence it.

Myers's work on automatism led to his brilliant conception, in 1891,
of hysteria. He defined it, with good reasons given, as "a disease of
the hypnotic stratum." Hardly had he done so when the wonderfully
ingenious observations of Binet, and especially of Janet in France, gave
to this view the completest of corroborations. These observations have
been extended in Germany, America, and elsewhere ; and although
Binet and Janet worked independently of Myers, and did work far
more objective, he nevertheless will stand as the original announcer
of a theory which, in my opinion, makes an epoch, not only in
medical, but in psychological science, because it brings in an entirely
new conception of our mental possibilities.

Myers's manner of apprehending the problem of the Subliminal
shows itself fruitful in every possible direction. While official science
practically refuses to attend to Subliminal phenomena, the circles which
do attend to them treat them with a respect altogether too undiscrimi-
nating — every Subliminal deliverance must be an oracle. The result
is that there is no basis of intercourse between those who best know
the facts and those who are most competent to discuss them. Myers
immediately establishes a basis by his remark that in so far as they
have to use the same organism, with its preformed avenues of ex-
pression— what may be very different strata of the Subliminal are
condemned in advance to manifest themselves in similar ways. This
might account for the great generic likeness of so many automatic
performances, while their different starting-points behind the threshold
might account for certain differences in them. Some of them, namely,
seem to include elements of supernormal knowledge ; others to show a
curious subconscious mania for personation and deception ; others again
to be mere drivel. But Myers's conception of various strata or levels
in the Subliminal sets us to analyzing them all from a new point of view.
The word Subliminal for him denotes only a region, with possibly the
most heterogeneous contents. Much of the content is certainly rubbish,

Professor William James.

[part

matter that Myers calls dissolutive, stuff that dreams are made of,
fragments of lapsed memory, mechanical effects of habit and ordinary
suggestion; some belongs to a middle region where a strange manu-
facture of inner romances perpetually goes on; finally, some of the
content appears superiorly and subtly perceptive. But each has to
appeal to us by the same channels and to use organs partly trained to
their performance by messages from the other levels. Under these
conditions what could be more natural to expect than a confusion,
which Myers's suggestion would then have been the first indispensable
step towards finally clearing away.

Once more, then, whatever be the upshot of the patient work
required here, Myers's resourceful intellect has certainly done a service
to psychology.

I said a while ago that his intellect was not by nature philosophic in
the narrower sense of being that of a logician. In the broader sense
of being a man of wide scientific imagination, Myers was most
eminently a philosopher. He has shown this by his unusually daring
grasp of the principle of evolution, and by the wonderful way in which
he has worked out suggestions of mental evolution by means of bio-
logical analogies. These analogies are, if anything, too profuse and
dazzling in his pages; but his conception of mental evolution is more
radical than anything yet considered by psychologists as possible. It
is absolutely original; and, being so radical, it becomes one of those
hypotheses which, once propounded, can never be forgotten, but soon
or later have to be worked out and submitted in every way to criticism
and verification.

The corner-stone of his conception is the fact that consciousness has
no essential unity. It aggregates and dissipates, and what we call
normal consciousness, — the * Human Mind' of classic psychology, — is
not even typical, but only one case out of thousands. Slight organic
alterations, intoxications and auto-intoxications, give supraliminal forms
completely different, and the subliminal region seems to have laws in
many respects peculiar. Myers thereupon makes the suggestion that
the whole system of consciousness studied by the classic psychology is
only an extract from a larger total, being a part told-off, as it were, to
do service in the adjustments of our physical organism to the world of
nature. This extract, aggregated and personified for this particular
purpose, has, like all evolving things, a variety of peculiarities. Having

XLII.]

Myers's Service to Psychology.

evolved, it may also dissolve, and in dreams, hysteria, and divers
forms of degeneration it seems to do so. This is a retrograde process
of separation in a consciousness of which the unity was once effected.
But again the consciousness may follow the opposite course and
integrate still farther, or evolve by growing into yet untried directions.
In veridical automatisms it actually seems to do so. It drops some of
its usual modes of increase, its ordinary use of the senses, for example,
and lays hold of bits of information which, in ways that we cannot
even follow conjecturally, leak into it by way of the Subliminal. The
ulterior source of a certain part of this information (limited and per-
verted as it always is by the organism's idiosyncrasies in the way of
transmission and expression) Myers thought he could reasonably trace
to departed human intelligence, or its existing equivalent. I pretend
to no opinion on this point, for I have as yet studied the evidence with
so little critical care that Myers was always surprised at my negli-
gence. I can therefore speak with detachment from this question and,
as a mere empirical psychologist, of Myers's general evolutionary
conception. As such a psychologist I feel sure that the latter is a
hypothesis of first-rate philosophic importance. It is based, of course,
on his conviction of the extent of the Subliminal, and will stand or fall
as that is verified or not ; but whether it stand or fall, it looks to me
like one of those sweeping ideas by which the scientific researches of
an entire generation are often moulded. It would not be surprising
if it proved such a leading idea in the investigation of the near future ;
for in one shape or another, the Subliminal has come to stay with us,
and the only possible course to take henceforth is radically and
thoroughly to explore its significance.

Looking back from Frederic Myers's vision of vastness in the field
of psychological research upon the programme as most academic
psychologists frame it, one must confess that its limitation at their
hands seems not only implausible, but in truth, a little ridiculous.
Even with brutes and madmen, even with hysterics and hypnotics
admitted as the academic psychologists admit them, the official out-
lines of the subject are far too neat to stand in the light of analogy with
the rest of Nature. The ultimates of Nature, — her simple elements, if
there be such, — may indeed combine in definite proportions and follow
classic laws of architecture ; but in her proximates, in her phenomena

Professor William James.

[part

as we immediately experience them, Nature is everywhere gothic, not
classic. She forms a real jungle, where all things are provisional, half-
fitted to each other, and untidy. When we add such a complex kind of
subliminal region as Myers believed in to the official region, we restore
the analogy; and, though we may be mistaken in much detail, in a
general way, at least, we become plausible. In comparison with
Myers's way of attacking the question of immortality in particular, the
official way is certainly so far from the mark as to be almost pre-
posterous. It assumes that when our ordinary consciousness goes out,
the only alternative surviving kind of consciousness that could be
possible is abstract mentality, living on spiritual truth, and communi-
cating ideal wisdom — in short, the whole classic platonizing Sunday-
school conception. Failing to get that sort of thing when it listens to
reports about mediums, it denies that there can be anything. Myers
approaches the subject with no such a priori requirement. If he finds
any positive indication of ' spirits/ he records it, whatever it may be,
and is willing to fit his conception to the facts, however grotesque the
latter may appear, rather than to blot out the facts to suit his
conception. But, as was long ago said by our collaborator, Mr.
Canning Schiller, in words more effective than any I can write/ if
any conception should be blotted out by serious lovers of Nature,
it surely ought to be the classic academic Sunday-school conception.
If anything is unlikely in a world like this, it is that the next adjacent
thing to the mere surface-show of our experience should be the realm
of eternal essences, of platonic ideas, of crystal battlements, of absolute
significance. But whether they be animists or associationists, a
supposition something like this is still the assumption of our usual
psychologists. It comes from their being for the most part philoso-
phers in the technical sense, and from their showing the weakness
of that profession for logical abstractions. Myers was primarily a
lover of life and not of abstractions. He loved human life, human
persons, and their peculiarities. So he could easily admit the possi-
bility of level beyond level of perfectly concrete experience, all
* queer and cactus-like 1 though it might be, before we touch the
absolute, or reach the eternal essences.

Behind the minute anatomists and the physiologists, with their metallic
instruments, there have always stood the out-door naturalists with
their eyes and love of concrete nature. The former call the latter

XLII.]

Myers's Service to Psychology.

superficial, but there is something wrong about your laboratory-
biologist who has no sympathy with living animals. In psychology
there is a similar distinction. Some psychologists are fascinated by the
varieties of mind in living action, others by the dissecting out, whether by
logical analysis or by brass instruments, of whatever elementary mental
processes may be there. Myers must decidedly be placed in the former
class, though his powerful use of analogy enabled him also to do work
after the fashion of the latter. He loved human nature as Cuvier
and Agassiz loved animal nature ; in his view, as in their view, the
subject formed a vast living picture. Whether his name will have in
psychology as honourable a place as their names have gained in the
sister science, will depend on whether future inquirers shall adopt or
reject his theories ; and the rapidity with which their decision shapes
itself will depend largely on the vigour with which this Society
continues its labour in his absence. It is at any rate a possibility, and
I am disposed to think it a probability, that Frederic Myers will
always be remembered in psychology as the pioneer who staked out a
vast tract of mental wilderness and planted the flag of genuine science
upon it. He was an enormous collector. He introduced for the
first time comparison, classification, and serial order into the peculiar
kind of fact which he collected. He was a genius at perceiving
analogies; he was fertile in hypotheses; and as far as conditions
allowed it in this meteoric region, he relied on verification. Such
ad/antages are of no avail, however, if one has struck into a false
road from the outset. But should it turn out that Frederic Myers
has really hit the right road by his divining instinct, it is certain
that, like the names of others who have been wise, his name will
keep an honourable place in scientific history.

Professor Charles Richet

[part

III.

IN MEMORIAM FREDERIC W. H. MYERS.

Par Charles Richet.

Le temps n'e8t pas venu encore oil pourront Stre mis en pleine
lumiere les m6rites et la gloire de Frexlenc Myers. La posterity et
l'histoire ne feront que rendre son nom plus illustre ; car son oeuvre,
vaste et profonde, est de celles que le temps doit singulierement grandir.
Aussi bien n'a-t-il jamais eu le souci de ce qu'on appelle la reputation,
ou la c£16brit£, cboses vaines qu'il eatimait k leur faible valeur. II
avait de plus hautes aspirations ; sur toutes cboses, l'amour desinterese^
de la v£rit4, la passion de la connaissance. Sans Stre un mystique, il a
eu toute la foi des mystiques, et, par un heureux assemblage de quality
intellectuelles, en apparence contradictoires, il combinait cette foi avec
une sagacite* et une precision toute scientifiques. Psychologue penetrant,
expe'rimentateur rigoureux, pbilosophe profond, il avait aussi toute
l'ardeur d'un apdtre.

La grande oeuvre qu'il a laissee est incomplete, comme toutes . les
grandes ceuvres ; mais l'impulsion donnee a la recherche a e'te' si puis-
sante que sans aucune exception tous ceux qui desormais e'tudieront
par des methodes scientifiques les sciences dites occultes seront forces
d'etre ses Aleves. La voie a ^te* tracee, et tracee de main-de-maitre,
par lui. Le de* veloppement admirable que nous entrevoyons pour ces
sciences dans un avenir plus ou moins lointain, aura toujours Myers
pour initiateur. Principium et fons. II sera le maitre de la premiere
heure, le he'ros, qui, abordant re'solument des problemes jusque-la
consid^rfo comme insolubles ou absurdes, aura ouvert a l'humanite
tout un monde illimite' d'esp^rances.

Mais je ne ferai pas ici l'analyse de son ceuvre. Ce serait une
tentative premature^, et, de ma part, tem^raire. On me permettra
seulement, dans cette reunion ou plane la me'moire de notre illustre
ami, de rappeler quelques souvenirs personnels. En dormant k notre

Digitized by Google

XLII.]

In Memoriam F. TP. H. Myers.

Amotion respectueuse cette forme concrete, et pour ainsi dire anec-
dotique, nous resterons tr&s pr£s de lui encore. Heureux si je puis
faire revivre la souvenir de celui qui a ete notre inspirateur et notre
guide k tous.

C'est a Poccasion des premieres experiences pubises par la Societe*
des recherches psychiques que j'entrai en relation avec Myers et
Gurney, et tout de suite, apr&s ^change de quelques lettres, la
sympathie fat profonde.

Je lui racontai ce que j'avais vu, et je lui fis part de mes esperances.
Elles etaient moins vastes que les siennes, et tout d'abord j'etais tente*
de Paccuser de cretlulite, mais peu a peu il arriva a me convaincre,
si bien que presque inalgre' moi, toutes les fois que j'avais un peu
longuement caused avec lui, je me sentais ensuite comme transformed
Peu dliommes autant que lui ont exerce une influence directrice
sur ma pensee. Je trouvais en effet en lui non pas cette foi
aveugle et cr&lule qui accepte toutes les fantaisies qu'une imagination
sans critique severe inspire a ses enthousiastes ; mais le culte de la
rigueur scientifique, l'amour de la precision et une erudition sure,
sagace et perspicace. Aussi, toutes les fois que quelque ph^nomene
int&essant dans le domaine des sciences occultes se pr&entait a moi,
ma premiere pens^e etait-elle toujours : 44 il faudra montrer cela a
Myers, et savoir ce qu'il en pense."

Et c'est ainsi que nous avons pu tous deux, en maintes occasions, a
Calmar en Su&de, en Saxe a Zwickau, a Tile Ribaud en France, a Paris
et a Cambridge, etudier ensemble quelques uns de ces phetiom&nes
de'concertanto, compliqu^s, qui par le melange du vrai avec le faux
semblent defier a la foi notre scepticisme et notre crexlulite.

Je ne peux me rappeler sans Amotion ces voyages, ces excursions
cbarmantes ou Pesprit de Myers se livrait tout entier. Attentif aux
moindre8 details, scrutant toutes les conditions exp&imentales, proposant
des dispositions ing^nieuses, infatigable dans son activity a la recherche,
inalterable dans sa confiance, il relevait mon courage souvent abattu,
et ne me permettait pas le d&espoir ou le d^couragement Com-
bien de fois n'avons-nous pas cru avoir surpris la clef du grand myst&re !
Et quelle eiiergie ne lui fallait-il pas pour ne pas se laisser troubler
par la surprise de quelque miserable incident, qui nous faisait retomber
a terre apr&s avoir con^u de sublimes esperances !

Certes, si je suis reste, malgr£ tout, confiant ? :ence dm.

Professor Charles Richet.

[pabt

ph^nomenes psychiques, c'est a lui que je le dois. Sans lui, je serais
revenu, probablement sans retour, a la science clas&ique, positive, cette
science dont il ne faut jamais dire de mal ; car c'est la base la pins
solide sur laquelle puisse s'affirmer une conviction, mais enfin dont on
peut, sans calomnie, dire que ses vues sont parfois tres courtes.

Si nous ne devions accepter que ce qui est prouve' d'une maniere
absolument irrefutable, nous serions recluits a bien peu de chose. Le
m£canisme du monde ambiant est un me'canisme assez groasier, dont
nous connaisson8, tant bien que mal, les termes principaux ; mais
nous avons soif d'aller au-dela. II nous faut autre chose que ce
mecanisme dont nous ne comprenons mdme pas l'essence. Nous avons
besom d'hypotheses plus hardies. Et la science ne peut vivre sans
ces hypotheses, qui s'avancent beaucoup plus loin que les demon-
strations : pour f^conder la science, Phypothese est ne'cessaire. Certes
la critique scientifique est indispensable ; mais il faut savoir distinguer
entre Paudace qui concoit toutes les plus grandioses hypotheses, et la
s6v6rit6 scientifique qui n'admet que la demonstration impeccable.

Voila ce qui rendait l'influence de F. Myers si profonde ; c'est qu'il
avait une audace sans limite dans ses hypotheses. II croyait ferme-
ment a un autre monde — moins grossier et moins barbare que le monde
m£canique qui frappe nos vues rudimentaires mais il ne se croyait
pas pour cela, comme tant de spirites, helas ! autorise a negliger les
regies d'une precision expe>imentale scrupuleuse.

A Tile Ribaud, quand avec Lodge et Ochorowicz nous etions en
presence des faits extraordinaires fournis par Eusapia Paladino, que de
longues et attachantes conversations sur tous ces grands problemes qui
nous passionnaient ! Ce temps passe1, de^'a lointain, restera un des
souvenirs les plus charmants de ma vie. Et dans cette hospitaliere
maison de Leckhampton, ou j'ai passe* de si douces heures, que de
souvenirs encore je pourrais eVoquer !

C'est a Myers qu'est du pour une bonne part le succes des congres
internationaux de psychologie, Paris 1889, Londres 1893, Munich
1896, Paris 1900. Grace a lui un accord, qui paraissait a premiere vue
impossible, a pu £tre realise : l'union entre la science psychologique
classique et la science psychique, cette psychologie future a laquelle
notre illustre ami travaillait avec tant d'ardeur. Ce n'4tait pas precise^
ment une tache facile que d'apprivoiser les psychologues et philosophes
de profession, accoutum^s a lire Platon, Aristote, Locke et Kant plus

XLII.]

In Memoriam F. W. H. Myers.

qu'a etudier le8 phenomenes de trance, et d'hypnose. Pourtant Myers y
a r^ussi. II a pu introduire dans les stances de ces congres les donates
des sciences, si mal a propos dites occultes, la teiepathie, les premoni-
tions, la suggestion mentale, etc. Non pas qu'il ait voulu faire p4n&rer
de vive force ces connaissances dans les esprits rebelles, mais au moins
a-t-il fait admettre qu'elles avaient quelque valeur, qu'il fallait les
discuter, et non les repousser par des a priori dedaigneux. Nul plus
que lui n'etait qualifie pour cette reconciliation ; sa parole etait toujours
respectee ; ses conseils toujours 4cout&. S'il a ete parfois blame par les
spirites qui le trouvaient trop timide, il a ete non moins energiquement
accuse* de temerite par les philosophes ; mais les uns et les autres,
spirites et philosophes, etaient, en derniere analyse, forces de s'incliner
devant la rigueur de sa dialectique, et la sev^rit^ de ses methodiques
critiques.

Assur^ment Myers n'a pas assiste au triomphe definitif de son
oeuvre — quand done un triomphe est-il definitif ? Mais au moins il aura vu
Involution, provoquee par lui, grandir rapidement. Aujourd'hui personne
ne raille plus ceux qui parlent de teiepathie et de pressentiments, et de
suggestion mentale, et d'autres phenomenes encore, qui excitaient il y a
vingt ans les plaisanteries et presque la commiseration des personnes soi-
disant raisonnables. Aujourd'hui, grace a Myers et a ses vaillants
collaborateurs, tout un monde nouveau nous est offert, et il faut, en
explorateurs que rien n'effraie, y penetrer. La tache est devenue plus
facile. Le chemin est largement ouvert. L'indiflerence et l'hostilite
du public et des savants officiels ont ete vaincues. Tous les hommes
qui reflechissent ont fini par comprendre qu'il y a la des tresors de
Veritas nouvelles; plus vraies et plus fecondes que toutes les v^rites
anciennes. Ce n'est pas le renversement de la science d'autrefois;
e'est l'avenement d'une science inconnue, riche en promesses, et m6me
ay ant deja donne* un peu plus que des promesses.

La derniere fois que j'ai vu Myers, ce fut en aout 1900, a ce Congres
de Psychologic en lequel il avait mis tant d'espe>ances. 11 y apportait
le r£cit tres document^ de ses experiences avec Mme. T., experiences
admirables qui avaient entraine sa conviction profonde et inebranlable.
Mais deja la maladie l'avait frappe, et il lui fallut tout son energie
pour pouvoir assister a nos seances.

Mais peu lui importait la maladie. II avait, dans ses etudes, ses
experiences, ses reflexions, acquis la conviction que la conscience survit

Professor Charles Richet.

[part

a la destruction du corps ; et la mort lui apparaissait comme un passage
a une existence nouvelle, une sorte de d&ivrance, que parfois m&me il
hatait de ses voeux. Malgr4 toute sa tendresse pour les siens, maJgre
les amities fidel^s qui Fentouraient, malgr4 le respect et Fadmiration
de tous ceux qui le connaissaient, il aspirait a entrer dans Favenir qu'il
voyait ouvert devant lui; et il est mort, doucement, plein de joie
et de confiance.

Son nom ne p&rira pas, son oeuvre est indestructible. Certes ses
amis conserveront fidelement le souvenir de cette chere m&noire ;
jamais ils n'oublieront tant de charme, tant de sagesse, tant de pui-ete
et d'^vation intellectuelles ; mais, lorsque ceux-la auront a leur tour,
dans quelques rapides ann&s, disparu, le nom de F. Myers restera
tout aussi vivant et respect^. II sera le mattrc, le premier maitre.
C'est lui qui aura donn4 le signal d'une science nouvelle ; et son nom
sera plac^ en t£te de cette psychologie future qui peut-Stre ^clipsera
toutes les autres connaissances humaines.

XLII.]

F: W. H. Myers and the S. P. R.

2»

IV.

F. W. H. MYERS AND THE SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL

The Society for Psychical Research stands now at a critical point in
its history. In Frederic Myers we have lost the last of the brilliant
trinity of Cambridge men who, in conjunction with Professor
Barrett, founded the Society in 1882. Myers had of course made his
name known in other fields before the Society was formed. His
early work, St. Favly marked him out as a poet of high and original
quality ; his essays on various literary themes, classical and modern,
had won for him the appreciation of scholars. Had he devoted himself
to such pursuits there can be little doubt that he would have taken a
high place in the Victorian age of English literature. But from early
manhood, or perhaps even from boyhood, he had been possessed with
that passion for the quest of immortality which he himself so well
described a few weeks before his death, in his memorial address on
Henry Sidgwick. Prior to 1882 he had joined a small circle, of
whom Professor and Mrs. Sidgwick and Edmund Gurney were the
other leading members, to investigate the phenomena of Spiritualism,
and had later assisted at Professor Barrett's experiments in thought-
transference.

From the foundation of the Society he threw all his energies into its
work, and after Edmund Gurney's death took a large part of the
routine duties in addition to the more congenial task of research.
Only those who have worked with him can know how heavy a burden
of dull business details incidental to the management of an organisa-
tion like ours Myers cheerfully undertook to bear. To his activity in
other directions the fifteen volumes of our Proceedings, to which he
contributed a preponderant share, bear eloquent witness. Again, though
the writing of the book was the task of Edmund Gurney, Myers played a

RESEARCH.

By Frank Podmore.

Frank Podmore.

[part

considerable part in collecting the material for Phantasms of the Living, and
was largely responsible for the classification of the cases finally adopted.

Probably the achievement which he would himself have regarded
as most expressive of his personality, and which it seems likely will
ultimately be accepted by dispassionate critics as possessing the
highest permanent value, is his prolonged investigation into the
powers and manifestations of what he has happily named the Sub-
liminal Self. Those who are unable to accept, without large
qualification and deduction, the conclusions at which he has arrived
can yet unreservedly admire the characteristic qualities of his genius
as here exhibited. We admire first his full and comprehensive survey
of the whole field, and the amazing industry on which that com-
prehensive survey is based. As Edmund Gurney, himself a student
of no mean capacity, once said to me, " Whilst I am reading a book,
Myers will master a literature."

Next we note the extraordinary power of generalisation and classifi-
cation displayed. Professor J ames and Dr. Lodge have already described
Myers' power of bringing together a vast assemblage of heterogeneous
phenomena, pointing out their resemblances and analogies, and uniting
them in a common system. Not only did he thus bring the whole
field of enquiry — a feat never attempted before — into one comprehensive
survey, but he carried his genius for classification into each particular
part of the whole area. One of the most striking examples of this
is afforded by his treatment of the material dealt with in Phantasms
of the Living. We had placed before us an immense mass of apparently
diverse and heterogeneous observations — dreams, visions, banshees,
corpse-lights, apparitions at death, fetches, doubles, and so on. The
idea that all these various phenomena might be explained as due
to the action of one mind upon another was the common property
from the outset of those who had founded the Society. But it
was mainly owing to Myers that the idea was embodied in pro-
visional categories and expressed by a notation hardly less com-
pendious than that of chemistry. Briefly, the various phenomena were
grouped according to the state of agent or percipient, whether the one
or the other were at the time of the occurrence in the normal waking
state, or asleep, or in trance, delirium, illness, or dying. Thus, when
a nercipient in full possession of his waking faculties saw an apparition
~* — fc1v before his death, the occurrence would be classed

XXII.]

F. W. H. Myers and th* 8. P. R.

as Ad Pn (agent dying, percipient normal). If two persons sleep-
ing in different rooms had a common dream, it would be noted as
A' P' (agent sleeping, percipient sleeping). Other instances of the
notation will be remembered by all who are familiar with his
articles on the Subliminal Self. It is to be noted that this power of
systematisation is of great practical value, even though later knowledge
should lead ultimately to quite other principles of arrangement. The
mere ability to bring together a vast number of scattered observations,
to point out some of their common characteristics, and to group them
in a provisional scheme, is a sufficiently rare endowment, and, in
an investigation like ours, of the highest possible utility. However
incomplete and rough and ready the classification may be — and Myers1
schemes were by no means rough and ready — it facilitates discussion
and at once directs and stimulates further investigation.

Closely connected with this power of classification was Myers* extra-
ordinary fertility in suggestion and hypothesis. He was always seeing
analogies that previous observers bad overlooked ; always bringing
together from the furthest extremities of the field phenomena seemingly
the most diverse and demonstrating their essential resemblance. It
is this faculty which makes his writings so perpetually suggestive and
provocative of thought. Those who differ most widely from some of
his conclusions cannot read his works without gaining innumerable
hints for their guidance, glimpses of new order and harmony in the
material, and unimagined side-lights on old problems.

On Myers' gift of expression there is no need to dwell at length, in
this place least of all. Every volume of the Proceedings up to the
present time has been graced by some article from his pen. The most
impressive characteristic of his style, however, was not the splendour
of the diction, the unequalled command over the literary stores alike of
classical and modern times, or even his rich imaginative endowment,
but his instinct on occasion for the inevitable word. In his more
studied utterances the language might seem at times overweighted
by its own riches, by the abundance of the imagery, by the embar-
rassment of quotation and allusion. It was when he chose to be
brief, and of many good things to select only the best, that his
style reached perhaps its highest point of effectiveness. It would be
difficult to surpass the art shown in the brief obituary n^ * ^ur
distinguished members which he contributed to the •

Frank Podmore.

[part

Society ; in his replies to attack in outside periodicals ; and in some
of the brief speeches at our meetings which were delivered to
meet an unrehearsed emergency. It is pertinent to remark in this
connection that our psychical vocabulary is largely owing to Myers ;
amongst his best known coinages are telepathy, supernormal, veridical.

But there is no need to dwell upon an aspect of his intellectual
equipment which is familiar to us all. It is perhaps not so well
recognised that much of his work was scarcely less finished from
a scientific than from a literary standpoint. His conscientiousness
as an artist was no doubt born with him ; his conscientious thorough-
ness as an investigator was more gradually and laboriously acquired.
That he did display so much care and thoroughness in the tedious
task of investigation is, in a man of his temperament, not the least
of his achievements.

No trait in his character was more conspicuous than the tolerance
of opinions at variance with his own. His deference indeed to any
expression of adverse views was so marked that it can best be
described as docility. At our Council meetings, whilst few were so
well qualified to form an opinion, no one was more reluctant to
seem to press his own. He was always open to suggestions from
whatever quarter. Part of this deference to any expression of opinion
was no doubt the simple outcome of a finished courtesy. But it had
its roots, I think, deeper than this. It was most marked in his atti
tude towards Henry Sidgwick. Myers was always ready to defer, and
set us the example of deferring, to any opinion in matters of policy
and conduct deliberately expressed by Professor Sidgwick. That
instant recognition of Sidg wick's true insight and sure judgment,
the truest and surest that any of us have known, was a tribute
that honoured the giver not less than the recipient.

Myers' life, happy in its strenuous activities, was happiest of all
perhaps in its conviction of another life to follow. Various symptoms
had given warning of his approaching end, and in November last,
writing to tell me that his own expectations of an early death had
lately received medical confirmation, he spoke of himself as looking
forward to the great change, and "disposed to count the days till
the holidays.*'

XLII.]

F. W. H. Myers as a Man of Letters.

F. W. H. MYERS AS A MAN OF LETTERS,

By Walter Leaf, LittD.

Myers has a right to a place among the foremost writers of our day ;
but it seems hardly likely that this right will ever be duly recognised.
Whether it be or not is a question with which we may concern our-
selves the less as it is certain that Myers himself did not greatly care.
He had within his grasp a high reputation as poet and essayist, and
deliberately sacrificed it to yet higher moral purposes. As years went
on he addressed himself less and less to men of letters, seeking ever
more consciously only the narrower audience which cared for the
one subject engrossing his own energies and ambitions. Hence it
is that to the world at large he is above all the author of St. Pavl,
his least mature work; and even the Times is capable of attributing
to him what was written by his brother.

Until the publication of his nearly finished book on Human Person-
ality and its Survival of Bodily Death, which will give him his final
place both as thinker and writer, nearly all his most mature and finest
work must be sought in the publications of the S.P.R. St. Paul is not
forgotten, nor should it be ; for it is the work of a real poet But it is
easy to point out in it the obvious faults of youth — too exuberant
imagination, too gorgeous colouring, excessive love of resonant phrase
and dominant harmony. One small volume contains all the published
verse of the rest of his life ; but it shows how he had learnt to control
the temptations which tended to lead him astray, and guide his
fertility towards one high aim. But it is in his later prose that this
power of chastening and self-mastery is best seen, ever gaining ground
and strengthening his style till he had attained something like perfection
in his art The poet's imagination is always there ; under his tgg£ no
discussion is arid ; flashes of insight light up alike the dark
subliminal self and the dreary inanities of automatic wr

Dr. Walter Leaf.

[part

no word is used merely for the effect of the moment ; all subserve the
moral end.

It is this ethical tendency which is the real bond between all his
published essays. His literary sense was almost abnormally acute;
but his criticism always leads up to one great question, by which he
judges alike Virgil and Mazzini, Victor Hugo, Tennyson, Marcus
Aurelius and Renan — what attitude does the poet, the historian, the
statesman take towards the great riddle of life ? What sense has he of
the interaction of the world unseen in the things of this life t What
lesson has genius, the " uprush from the subliminal self," brought to
man from behind the veil 1 Even in the essay on Greek Oracles, which
was I believe the first published of his prose works, this desire for
knowledge of the spiritual mysteries was the leading thought — hardly
apparent to the careless reader at first, but clearly indicated in the
notes added to the later editions. It can be traced through the other
essays Classical and Modem, till in the later volume, Science and a
Future Life, it is the avowed and only subject

Side by side with the ethical interest grows the scientific, till the
threefold cord of goodness, truth, and beauty is twined in harmony.
Each reinforces the other. Myers became a finer artist not by seeking
" Art for art's sake," but by using his art for moral and scientific ends
at once. Shallow thinkers may at times call him " rhetorical," because
they do not reflect that rhetoric is after all the art of making other men
share one's faith. In this sense Myers was eminently " rhetorical " ;
he had to an extraordinary degree the gift of persuasiveness — a gilt
which is probably even better displayed in his correspondence than in
his published work. His sympathetic and emotional nature went quick
and straight to an opponent's point of view ; his skill in language could
present his own immediate object even to the coldest adversary as
eminently rational and desirable.

But in his best work there is little that even an enemy can call
rhetorical. On the contrary, the most remarkable feature in it is,
to my mind, the eminently workmanlike style in which he could, when
occasion called for it, render a lucid statement of long and often
repellent points. Any one of his papers in our Proceedings will
abundantly show this capacity. If I instance that on Pseudo-possession
(in Vol. XV., pp. 384-415), it is not because of any special interest or
merit to be found in it, but because it is an average — an almost every-

Digitized byCjOOQlC

xlii.] F. W. H. Myers as a Man of Letters.

day — specimen of his work, and (with the exception of his memoir
of Henry Sidgwick) the last published during his life. It is a dis-
cussion of two French medical works, and opens with a studiously
unadorned statement of facts. The luminous arrangement will
hardly be appreciated b}T any who have not learnt by experience
how hard a task it is to set out clearly in short space essential
points picked out from a large mass , of recorded observation. But
we have not gone far before Myers's humour begins to play round
the dull tale of hysteria. The u tragedy of the free breakfast table "
(p. 389), is followed by the scene between " the wily psychologist and
the common devil" (p. 391) ; and among the pregnant and trenchant
criticisms of the doctrine of metempsychosis our eyes can hardly fail
to twinkle as we hear how Victor Hugo " took possession/' as his own
earlier avatars, " of most of the leading personages of antiquity whom
he could manage to string together in chronological sequence." But
the whole essay is a masterpiece in scientific treatment of intractable
materials. It contains, almost as an obiter dictum, Myers's last words
on telepathy (pp. 408-410), put with cogency to satisfy the most
exigent logician ; and it is only on the last page that the burning moral
conviction of which we have been half-conscious throughout is allowed
to show itself openly in the closing chord of hope — in the assurance
on which Myers was never tired of dwelling, that the human race is yet
in infancy ; that we are " the ancients of the world " ; and that all this
strange farrago of hysteria, telepathy, automatism, and genius points
forwards to the day when our successors "will look on our religions with
pity and our science with contempt, while they analyse with a smile
our rudimentary efforts at self-realisation, remarking 'how hard a
thing it was to found the race of man.'"

It is natural to compare Myers to Ruskin. Both devoted high gifts
of genius to high moral ends. Much of Modern Painters has like faults
with St. Paul, and Ruskin like Myers learnt with years the need of
self-suppression, though at the last he affected a simplicity which was
somewhat overdone. But in two points at least Myers was the finer
artist, if indeed the two points are not really one. Myers has the
finer gift of humour. Readers of his published Essays only would
hardly suspect how keen this was ; but it was never suppressed when
he wrote for our Proceedings, or when he gave the S.P.R. or some other
congenial audience one of those wonderful addresses, delivered without

Dr. Walter Leaf.

[part xlil]

note or hesitation, which made us feel that he could, had he chosen,
have taken as high a rank among orators as among writers.

And above all Myers was always preaching hope — hope for man
in the largest sense. There is in all he wrote not one touch of the
peevish dissatisfaction of the prophet in an unworthy age which man
beyond redemption so much of Ruskin's best work. Myers was
throughout masculine, and his ever-growing faith in man's life beyond
the grave raised him higher and higher above the petty discourage-
ments which to Ruskin seemed to make all his preaching hopeless even
while it was being uttered. Myers worked with all his heart for men
in the sure and certain hope that his labours, however slow advance
might seem, would not in the end be in vain.

It is less possible to appreciate Myers than even Ruskin without
insisting on this indissoluble interfusion of literature and morals.
The essay on his best-beloved Virgil is perhaps that of all his utter-
ances which gives us most of his literary self. And the very heart
of Virgil was to him in the famous speech of Anchises to Aeneas
in Elysium (Aen. vi. 724-755), where the poet "who meant, as
we know, to devote to philosophy the rest of his life after the
completion of the Aeneid," propounds "an answer to the riddle
of the universe in an unexpectedly definite form." This ultimate
subordination of form to substance, of art to thought, is the whole
story of Myers's literary work. His art gained all the more because
it was not pursued as a primary aim, and the obvious rewards of it
were little sought. Those only who followed the working of his
aspirations will adequately recognise his mastery, and see how for him
style was but the expression of his inmost soul In his wonderful
fragments of Virgilian translation he reached his height. The poet
who was ever his truest ideal is transfused till the Roman and the
Englishman blend in one passion, human and divine, and the
triumphant song is taken up and proclaimed again after two thousand
years :

"To God again the enfranchised soul must tend,
He is her home, her Author is her end ;
No death is hers; when earthly eyes grow dim
Starlike she soars and Godlike melts in Him."

Digitized by

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research.

PART XLIII.

March, 1902.

ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT,

Dr. Oliver Lodge, F.R.S.

In continuing to occupy the Chair for another year I am called upon
to address the Society, and I do so under some disadvantage as having
not very recently had an opportunity for personal investigation into
any important phenomenon about which the Society might be desirous
of hearing. Accordingly it appears that I must make some general
observations about certain aspects of our work, and must attempt a
review of some portions of the situation.

To this end I propose to say something on each of the following
topics, though I shall by no means attempt to treat any of them ex-
haustively : —

(1) lThe current explanations of trance lucidity and clairvoyance.

(2) The strange physical phenomena sometimes accompanying

trance.

(3) The views concerning these ultra-normal human faculties that

most appeal to me.
First I will speak of trance lucidity and clairvoyance; whereby I
intend just now to signify the fact, the undoubted fact as it appears
to me, that under certain conditions the mouth can speak and the
hand can write concerning things wholly outside the normal ken of
the mind usually controlling them. There are many questions of
interest about this process : the muscles of the mouth and hand appear

Digitized by Google

Address by the President,

[part

to be stimulated, not from the brain centres dominated by the will, but
from some more automatic and less conscious region of the brain, the
part ordinarily supposed to be concerned in dreams and in hypnosis and
automatisms generally ; at any rate the normal customary mind of the
writer or speaker does not appear to be drawn upon. And yet there
appears to be an operating intelligence, with a character and knowledge
of its own. The questions of interest are, What is that operating
intelligence ? and how is the extra knowledge displayed by it attained f
The chief customary alternative answers to the second question are
two : —

(a) By telepathy from living people.

(b) By direct information imparted to it by the continued conscious

individual agency of deceased persons.
On each of these hypothetical explanations so much has been said,
for and against, that perhaps it is unnecessary to recapitulate the
arguments ; especially since in that (in every sense) considerable part
of the Proceedings which has been recently issued, Professor Hyalop
has dealt with the whole subject in an elaborate and careful manner ;
and, for my own part, I wish to express to him my thanks for the
great care and labour he has bestowed upon this work, and for the
valuable contribution to Science which he has made. I know by
experience how troublesome it is, and how much time it consumes, to
comment with anything like fulness upon a long series of trance
utterances relating to domestic matters about which strangers are
naturally quite uninformed and uninterested, and how difficult it is to
make appear in the printed record any trace of the human and living
interest sometimes vividly felt in the communications themselves by
those to whom all the little references and personal traits have been
familiar from childhood. No doubt all such records must necessarily
appear very dull to strangers, just as a family conversation overheard
in a railway carriage, about " Harry " and " Uncle Tom n and " Lucy "
and the rest, becomes, if long continued, oppressively wearisome.
Patience, however, is one of the virtues which any one aspiring to be
a student has to learn. The bulk of Professor Hyslop's Report may
deter a good many people from even beginning to read it ; but I would
point out that a great deal of this bulk consists, not of the record itself,
but of comments on it, discussion of hypotheses concerning it, and a
record of ingenious experiments undertaken, with the help of students
and colleagues at Columbia University, for the purpose of elucidating
and while the complete record is there for any future student to
it is possible for any one skilled in the process of

Digitized by

XLIII.]

t)r. Oliver Lodge.

reading and judicious skipping to make himself acquainted with the
main features of Professor Hyslop's weighty and splendid piece of work
without reading the whole volume.
This, however, is a digression.

Returning to the subject of trance-lucidity generally, I wish to
emphasise my conviction that an explanation based on telepathy as
a vera causa can be pressed too far. Telepathy is the one ultra-normal
human faculty to the reality of which most of those who have
engaged in these researches are prepared to assent ; that is, to assent
to it as a bare fact, a summary of certain observed phenomena ; but
its laws are unknown and its scope and meaning are not yet apparent.
It is probably but one of a whole series of scientifically unrecorded
and unrecognised human faculties ; and it may turn out to be a mistake
to attempt to employ it for the purpose of explaining a great number
of other powers, which may be co-extensive or equipollent with itself;
though the attempt is a natural and proper one to make. A key must
be tried in all locks before we can be sure that it is not a master key ;
and if it open only one or two, it represents so much gained.

Telepathy itself, however, is in need of explanation. An idea or
thought in the mind of one person reverberates and dimly appears
in the mind of another. How does this occur 1 Is it a physical
process going on in some physical medium or ether connecting the
two brains? Is it primarily a physiological function of the brain,
or is it primarily psychological ? If psychological only, what does
that mean 1 Perhaps it may not be a direct immediate action
between the two minds at all ; perhaps there must be an intermediary,
— if not a physical medium, then a psychological medium, — or con-
ceivably a third intelligence or mind operating on both agent and
percipient, or in communication with both.

Until we can answer these questions, — and for myself I doubt if
I have succeeded even in properly formulating them,— it is scarcely
possible to regard telepathy, even from the sitter, as a legitimate
explanation of much of the clairvoyance or lucidity noticed in trance
utterances. It may have to be assumed as the least strained explana-
tion, but it cannot with certainty be definitely asserted to be the
correct one, even when it would easily cover the facts ; still less is it
permissible, except as the vaguest and most groping hypothesis, to press
it whenever convenient beyond the limits of experiment into an extra-
polated region, and to suppose that the minds of entirely disconnected
and unconscious strangers at a distance are actually read : when it has
never been experimentally shown that they can be read at all.

Address by the President,

[pakt

Those strangers must be supposed to be less familiar with the
concerns of the person ostensibly represented as communicating through
an entranced medium than he would be himself : why should we
seek to go beyond the hypothesis of the agency of his in some way
persisting intelligence and postulate the unconscious agency of outside
or stranger persons ? The reasons for doing so are obvious and may
be cogent. It is easy to suppose that living people somewhere are
acquainted each with one or two of the facts related by the
clairvoyante : and these people exist; whereas we are not by any
means so sure of the continued existence of the deceased person who
is the ostensible communicator. In fact, that is just the thing we
should like to be able to prove > i.e., we should like to ascertain the
actual truth concerning it, in a scientific way. Hence, again, I
would plead that those of our members who are convinced of con-
tinued existence, continued accessible existence, must try to be patient
with those of us who are not : impatience of any kind is out of place
in this difficult quest, to which in all ages some part of humanity has
devoted itself with only personal and not universal satisfaction.

One hypothesis concerning the agency of unembodied spirits is that
they themselves temporarily occupy and animate some portion of the
body of the medium, and thereby control a sufficient part of the
physiological mechanism to convey the message they desire. The
impression which such a hypothesis as this makes upon us depends
upon the view that we take of our own normal powers: it derives
any prima facie reasonableness which it may possess from the theory
that we ourselves are mental entities, to which the names soul, spirit,
etc., have been popularly applied, who may be said to form or accrete,
to inhabit and to control a certain assemblage of terrestrial atoms,
which we call our bodies; by means of which we, as psychological
agents, can manage to convey more or less intelligible messages to
other similarly clothed or incarnate intelligences : employing for that
purpose such physical processes as the production of aerial vibrations,
or the record left by ink traces upon paper.

Given that we are such mental entities or psychological intelligences,
with the power of accreting and shaping matter by the act of feeding,
we must note in passing the important fact that the manufacture of
our bodies, just spoken of, is a feat accomplished by life without mind,
or at least with only sub-conscious mind : it is wholly beyond the power
of our conscious mind to perform. Feed a child, and in due course
unconsciously he becomes a man, — a process beyond our control or

<w-+— ^*'ng and wholly transcending our utmost executive akilL

Digitized by Google

XLIII.]

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

Note further that it is the same unconscious life, or part of the
body, or whatever is the proper term, which manages nearly all
the ordinary vital processes, and disposes of our food . or gives us
indigestion as it sees fit. This may seem a frivolous interlude, but
it is important in connection with what follows. It is perhaps
obviously important in connection with the whole business of the
inter-action between mind and matter.

The hypothesis which seeks to explain the control of a medium's
body in trance by the agency of discarnate spirits, presumes that
an elaborate machine like our bodies is capable of being occasionally
used, not only by the mind or intelligence which manufactured it,
so to speak, but temporarily and with difficulty by other minds or
intelligences permitted to make use of it.

There are many difficulties here, and one of them is the assumption
that such other intelligences exist. But that I confess is to me not
a very improbable assumption ; for knowing what we already certainly
know of the material universe, of its immense scope, and the number
of habitable worlds it contains (I do not say inhabited, for that the
evidence does not yet reveal, but habitable worlds), realising also
the absurdity of the idea that our few senses have instructed us
concerning all the possibilities of existence which can be associated
in our minds with the generalised idea of " habitable " : perceiving
also the immense variety of life which luxuriates everywhere on this
planet wherever the conditions permit: I find it impossible to deny
the probability that there may be in space an immense range of life
and intelligence of which at present we know nothing.

Indeed, we ourselves are here on this planet and in this body for
only a few scoxe revolutions of the earth round the sun : a thousand
months exceeds what we call the " lifetime " of most of us. Where
or what we were before, and where or what we shall be after, are
questions — intimately and necessarily connected with each other, as
I believe, and as Plato taught, or allowed himself to appear to teach —
which as yet remain unanswered and as some think unanswerable.

But granting the possibility of a far greater and more widespread
prevalence of life or mind than we have been accustomed to
contemplate — a prevalence as extensive, perhaps, as that of matter —
what is the probability that the different classes of life and mind
interfere or inter-operate with each other? There is no a priori
probability either way: it is purely a question for experience and
observation.

By observation we learn that as a general rule ail

Digitized by Google

Address by the President,

[part

sensible inhabitants of this world are to all appearance left to pursue
their own policy undisturbed except by mutual collision, conflict or
co-operation. How much of this isolation is apparent, and how much
of it is real, I will not now inquire. I believe it would be admitted
by philosophers that the appearance of isolation and independence
would be likely to present itself, even in a world where the reality
was guidance and control; and certainly there have at all times
been persons, called religious persons, who have felt more or less
conscious of directing aid.

So it is with the material worlds: — they sail placidly along in
the immensities of space, unimpeded and unhampered ; and pluming
themselves, perhaps, many of them — those whose physical atmosphere
happens to be extra dense, or whose vision is otherwise limited— on
the idea of complete, possibly they call it splendid, isolation. But
we who see further, through our clearer air, — we, the heirs of
Aristarchus, Copernicus, and Galileo, who realise the orbs of space, —
know that this apparent freedom is illusory : that all their motions
are controlled by a force of which they are unconscious: and that
even the outward appearance of isolation, or immunity from external
disturbance, is liable to be suddenly and violently terminated; for
we know that in the depths of space, every now and then, a
substantial encounter with some other similar body occurs — a collision,
a catastrophe, and the blaze of what we call a new star : a phenomenon
which by persons more closely concerned — persons in the immediate
neighbourhood, if such there be — would rather be styled the destruction
of an old one.1

In the psychological world have we ever experienced any such
ultra-normal phenomenon, any interference from without of our
normal and placid condition; is there any record of an inrush of
intelligence or of moral character beyond the standard of humanity,
any avenue to information not normally accessible, any revolution
in our ideas of God and of humanity and of the meaning of existence ?
Have we ever welcomed or maltreated a prophet or a seer of the
first magnitude ? Or, on a lower level, have we ever had experience,
in our family life, of any strange occurrence, apparently hallucinatory

]I am well aware that collision between solid habitable globes roust be an
extremely rare occurrence, and that collisions between widespread or nebulous
masses must be much commoner. But the meaning of what I am saying does
not depend on the habitability of the colliding masses, nor does it depend on the
relative frequency of collisions ; my point is to emphasise the rarity, but at the
same time the possibility, of the occurrence.

XLIII.]

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

bat yet significant, any vision or voice or communication from friends
beyond the normal range, or, it may be, from friends beyond the
veil? Or, to go lower down still, have we ever witnessed any
movement of material objects which by known causes or by normal
inhabitants of this planet have not been moved f

It is a question of evidence whether such things have occurred ;
and opinions differ. For myself, I think they have.* Part of the
extra difficulty of accepting evidence for any unusual phenomena
is the a priori notion that such occurrences are contrary to Natural
Law, and are therefore impossible. We cannot, however, clearly
tell that they are contrary to natural law; all we can safely say is
that they are contrary to natural custom; or, safer still, that they
are contrary or supplementary to our own usual experience. That
last statement is safe enough; but between that and the adjective
" impossible," or the equivalent phrase "contrary to the order of
Nature," there is a vast and unfillable gap.

Whence, then, arises the antagonism — the inveterate and, let us
hope, expiring antagonism — between orthodox science and the evidence
that humanity has at different times adduced, the evidence which
our Society has conscientiously worked at, that such occasional
irruptions do occur? It arises, I think, because Science has a horror
of the unintelligible: it can make nothing of a capricious and dis
orderly agent, and it prefers to ignore the existence of any such.
It is accustomed to simplify its problems by the method of abstraction
— that powerful practical method of ignoring or eliminating any
causes which are too embarrassing, too complex or too trivial, to be
taken into account. And by a long course of successful ignoration
it may have acquired a habit of thinking that it can actually exclude,
instead of only abstract, these disturbing causes. That, however, is
beyond its power. Abstraction is a most useful process, but it can
only exclude from consideration; it cannot really exclude from the
universe1 anything too complex or too apparently disorderly. Of
course there is no real hesitation on the part of any one to admit
such a statement as that; but nevertheless a certain amount of
exclusion — exclusion from its own experimental area — science has
found it possible to exert: and it has exercised this exclusion. If
disturbances were frequent, trustworthy science would be almost
impossible ; life in the laboratory would be like that depicted by the
author of Prehistoric Peeps, where long-necked reptiles assist at every
entertainment.

Barnes Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism, vol. i.t p. 77.

Address by the President,

[PABT

So also a little mischief or malice might cause trouble in any
scientific laboratory. Introduce a spider or other live animal into
the balance or other delicate apparatus of the physicist, and he will
for a time be thrown into confusion. Something capricious and
disorderly has entered, and spoils everything. This is just the sort
of annoyance which a scientific man would feel if suddenly introduced
into a traditional stance in full activity. It would, however, be open
to a first-rate experimentalist, even if a spider were a perfectly new
experience to him, to catch it and tame it and get it to spin webs
for his further instrumental convenience; but usually it would be
ejected as too confusing, and its study would be left to the biologists.
If biologists did not exist, if the live beast were the first ever
experienced, and if, subsequent to the confusion, it escaped, it is
difficult to see how a narrative of the experience could be received
by any scientific society to which it was recounted, except with
incredulity, more or less polite.

So, I conceive, could a human being, looking down on an ant
world, inflict catastrophe and work miracles of a discomposing
character. I suppose that the ordinary ant in populous countries
must already have been liable to such irruptions and disturbance of
its economy in past history, and may be thought to have accumulated
and handed down some legends of such occurrences ; but to ants
in unexplored countries, the achievements of some shipwrecked mariner
might come as a novel and incredible experience. And it may be
noted that the performances of humanity could be beyond the powers
of the ant community, not only in magnitude, but in kind. For
instance, human beings might administer chemicals, or electric shocks,
or sunlight concentrated by a lens. ^

Now, by far the greater number of the physical phenomena which
are asserted to take place in the presence of a medium involve
nothing in themselves extraordinary: the production of scent, for
instance, the introduction of flowers and other objects, movements
of furniture, the impress on photographic plates, are all of a nature
that can easily be managed by normal means, given time and oppor-
tunity ; and the only thing requiring explanation is how they are
managed under the given conditions, more or less stringently devised
to prevent their normal occurrence. This is a familiar old battle-
ground, at which we glance and pass on.

But there is a residue of traditional physical phenomena which
involve an effect beyond ordinary human power to accomplish. For
instance, the Asserted .resistance of the human skin and nerves to fire,

xliii.] Dr. Oliver Lodge. 45

usually though not always when under religious emotion or in some
trance state; or the extraction of a solid object from a permanently
closed box ; or, what is much more commonly asserted than the other
two, the materialisation or appearance of temporary human forms.

I confess that I myself have never seen any of these things achieved
under satisfactory conditions, but the evidence of Sir William Crookes
and others for certain of them is very detailed ; and it is almost as
difficult to resist the testimony as it is to accept the things testified.
Moreover, some in this audience must imagine themselves perfectly
familiar with all these occurrences.

Let us therefore see whether, in the light of our present knowledge
of Physics, they are wholly impossible and absurd, so that no testimony
could produce any effect on our incredulity; or whether we may
complacently inquire into the evidence, and be prepared to investigate
any given case of their occurrence; with care and due scepticism
undoubtedly, but not with fixed and impervious minds.

One of the three instances quoted seems in some respects the
simplest and most definite, inasmuch as it keeps off the less familiar
ground of physiology and biology and touches only on physics. I
mean the phenomenon commonly spoken of as the "passage of
matter through matter," — the passage or leakage of one inorganic solid
through another, without damage or violence. Asserted instances of
this are such as the tying or untying of knots on an endless string, the
extraction of a billiard ball from a permanently closed shell, and
the linkage together of two closed rings. I have never seen a trust-
worthy instance of any of these occurrences. I know of rings, being
put over things apparently too large — a ring on the stem of a wineglass,
for instance, or on the leg of a round table, or on a man's wrist,1 — but
I have never seen a permanent and undeniable instance of what may
be termed a physical miracle ; and I am not aware that there is such a
thing on view in the world as, for instance, the linkage of unjoined
^jggs of il'i ffercnt kinds of wood : though perhaps the skill of the
tree, fancier might rmmage to accomplish this by constrained
[ler favourable conditions. I assume, however, that any
of doing it could be detected by proper botanical

result.

wrist being believed by Dr. George Wyld to be
am all in have ever gone over the hand ; see Pro-
jfflg fur ikn account of an investigation of this
|^>kf*, Mr. Victor Horsley, and others, who con-
tito the position in which they found it by

Digitized by Google

Address by the President,

[part

A couple of rings of unjoined leather, cut out of a single akin, have
been shown linked together; but this linkage can be managed by
taking advantage of the thickness of the skin and by judicious cutting.
An assemblage of wineglass and egg-cup stems, packed through a
hole in a piece of wood, has been produced in Berlin, and has
been kindly lent for our inspection; but though this is asserted to
have been produced under supernormal conditions, it is certainly
only of the nature of a moderately ingenious mechanical contrivance
involving skilled and deceptive construction. A similar object, con-
sisting of a wooden ring on the neck of a glass vase, recently con-
structed (quite normally) in Sir William Crookes's laboratory, I am
also permitted to exhibit.

But concerning the abnormal " passage of matter through matter," I
am not aware that Sir William Crookes has ever testified to any
instance of it ; the only scientific evidence that I am acquainted with
was that given by Professor Zo liner, which, though extremely curious
and puzzling and detailed, does not leave a feeling of conviction on the
unprejudiced mind.

Accordingly, the simplest thing for me, or any other scientific man
at the present day, is to treat the case of matter through matter as
not only unproven but as impossible, and to decline to consider it.
Nevertheless, so many extraordinary things have happened that I
would not feel too certain that we may not some day have to provide
a niche for something of this kind. If so, one hardly likes to suggest
that the recently-discovered probably complex structure of the material
atom, with interspaces very large in proportion to the aggregate bulk
of its actual constituents, may have to be appealed to, in order to
explain the hypothetical interpenetration of two solids. At present,
however, the difficulties of any such hypothesis are enormous, and I
confess myself an entire sceptic as to the occurrence of any such
phenomenon, and should require extremely cogent evidence to
convince me.

But it may be said, Do I find movements of untouched objects, or
do I find materialisations, any easier of belief? Yes, I do. I am
disposed to maintain that I have myself witnessed, in a dim light,
occasional abnormal instances of these things ; and I am certainly
prepared to entertain a consideration of them.

Suppose an untouched object comes sailing or hurtling through the
air, or suppose an object is raised or floated from the ground, how are
we to regard it 1 This is just what a live animal could do, and so the
first natural hypothesis is that some live thing is doing it; (a) the

XLIII.]

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

medium himself, acting by trick or concealed mechanism; (b) a
confederate, — an unconscious confederate perhaps among the sitters ;
(c) an unknown and invisible live entity other than the people present.
If in any such action the ordinary laws of nature were superseded,
if the weight of a piece of matter could be shown to have disappeared,
or if fresh energy were introduced beyond the recognised categories
of energy, then there would be additional difficulties; but hitherto
there has been no attempt to establish either of these things. Indeed
it must be admitted that insufficient attention is usually paid to this
aspect of ordinary commonplace abnormal physical phenomena. If a
heavy body is raised under good conditions, we should always try to
ascertain (I do not say that it is easy to ascertain) where its weight
has gone to ; that is to say, what supports it, what ultimately supports
it. For instance, if experiments were conducted in a suspended room,
would the weight of that room, as ascertained by an outside balance,
remain unaltered when a table or person was levitated inside it?
or could the agencies operating inside affect bodies outside ? — questions
these which appear capable of answer, with sufficient trouble, in an
organised psychical laboratory : such a laboratory as does not, I
suppose, yet exist, but which might exist, and which will exist in the
future, if the physical aspect of experimental psychology is ever to
become recognised as a branch of orthodox physics.

Or take materialisations. I do not pretend to understand them,
but, as I have hinted in an earlier part of this Address, if ever genuine
and objective, they may after all represent only a singular and
surprising modification of a known power of life. Somewhat as a
mollusc, or a crustacean, or a snail can extract material from the water
or from its surroundings wherewith to make a shell, or — a closer
analogy — just as an animal can assimilate the material of its food
and convert it into muscle, or hair, or skin, or bone, or feathers — a
process of the utmost marvel, but nevertheless an everyday occurrence,
— so I could conceive it possible, if the evidence were good enough,
that some other intelligence or living entity, not ordinarily manifest
to our senses, though possibly already in constant touch with our
physical universe by reason of possessing *"hnfa firry bi? called an
etherial body, could for a time utilise the * articles which

come in its way, and make for itself a
capable of appealing to our ordinary sensi
unlikely, but it is not altogether unimugii
impossible that some of these temporary *i
be inadequate to app- " " ^ eyes aw*

^ Digitized by GoOgle j^^.

Address by the President,

[part

impress a photographic plate ; but here I confess that the evidence,
to my mind, wholly breaks down, and I have never yet seen t
satisfying instance of what is termed a spirit photograph ; nor is it
easy to imagine the kind of record, apart from testimony, which in
such a case would be convincing ; unless such photographs could be
produced at will, f

The evidence for photographs of invisible people which we some-
times hear adduced as adequate is surprisingly feeble. For instance,
in a recent anonymous and weak book, said to be written by t
member of this Society, two such photographs are reproduced which
are said to have been obtained under what are considered crucial
conditions; but the narrative itself at once suggests a simple trick
on the part of the photographer, viz., the provision of backgrounds
for sitters with vague human forms all ready depicted on them in
sulphate of quinine.

The ingenious and able impositions of a conjurer are oav&i
vetissimce, and full allowance must be made for them. Some of the
physical phenomena which I have adduced as among those pro-
claimed to have occurred, such as apports, scent, movement of objects,
passage of matter through matter,1 bear a perilous resemblance to
conjuring tricks, of a kind fairly well known ; which tricks if well
done can be very deceptive. Hence extreme caution is necessary,
and full control must be allowed to the observers, — a thing which
conjurers never really allow : I have never seen a silent and genuinely-
controlled conjurer: and in so far as mediums find it necessary to
insist on their own conditions, so far they must be content to be
treated as conjurers. Honest and good people are often the most
readily deceived, especially by protestations and by injured innocence :
so certain Members and Associates of this Society must be good enough
to pardon the rest of us for being, as they think, stupidly and absurdly
sceptical about the reality of many phenomena in which they themselves
strongly believe. "Facts are chiels that winna ding," says Robert
Burns. So is belief. One cannot coerce belief. And it is difficult
sometimes to adduce satisfying reasons for either the faith or the
incredulity that is in us on any particular topic.

One is frequently asked by casual and irresponsible persons: Do
you believe in so and so 1 usually : Do you believe in ghosts ? — a question
which ordinarily has no meaning in the mind of the asker, and to

technical phrase which I do not justify and do not trouble to improve upon
untU convinced of the genuineness of the kind of occurrence intended by that
rase.

Digitized by

XLIII.]

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

which a categorical reply, either yes or no, would convey no real
information. The best answer to such a question is that belief is not
our business, but that investigation is ; and if any answer beyond that
is to be given to a stranger, it must take the form of a question
asking for a definition of the terms used, — a stage beyond which
the casual inquirer can rarely go.

But suppose he can, and is not a flippant inquirer, with an eye
to ridicule, or a comic article in the Press. This Society, for
instance, is not in the position of a casual and irresponsible inquirer;
almost every grade of opinion, and probably almost every grade of
intelligence, exists among its members; indeed it would be only
wholesome in the present state of our knowledge if each one of us
held a different shade of opinion. Moreover, some of our members
must have devoted the greater part of a lifetime to the subject, and
must be far more experienced than myself; but still if any one
cares to hear what sort of conviction has been borne in upon my
own mind, as a scientific man, by some 20 years' familiarity with
those questions which concern us, I am very willing to reply as
frankly as I can.

First, then, I am, for all personal purposes, convinced of the
persistence of human existence beyond bodily death; and though
I am unable to justify that belief in a full and complete manner,
yet it is a belief which has been produced by scientific evidence;
that is, it is based upon facts and experience, though I might find it
impossible to explain categorically how the facts have produced that
conviction. Suffice it to say for the present that it is not in a simple
and obvious way, nor one that can be grasped in an hour or two,
except by those who have seriously studied the subject, and are con-
sequently equally entitled to an opinion of their own.

For if asked : Do I associate physical movements and other physical
phenomena with the continued existence of deceased persons? I
must answer I do not. The phenomena always occur in the presence
of the living, and the natural supposition at first is that the living
in some unknown way produced them; that, in so far as they are
not tricks, they represent an unexpected and unrecognised extension of
human muscular faculty ; — a faculty which, by the way, though we are
well accustomed to it, is itself, in its quite normal manifestations,
a most noteworthy phenomenon, and philosophically considered of
extreme significance; though it would take too long to bring out
the full meaning of what I here suggest. Suffice it to say that by
the action of live things the ordinary processes of the degradation

A ddre8S by the President,

[part

or dissipation of energy can be diverted or suspended or reversed 1 ;
weights can be raised which inorganically wonld have fallen ; rivers
can be deflected, and the face of the earth changed; and, most
surprising of all, a conclave of persons can sit and decide, or to all
appearance decide, whether a certain thing shall happen or shall not.

If pressed, I must confess that I do not see how the hypothesis of
the continued existence of human personalities, so long as they are
disconnected with bodies and muscles, is any real help in explaining
ultra-normal physical movements; except that since the movements
show traces of what we ordinarily speak of as will and intelligence,
they do suggest the agency of live things of some kind.

But then I see no reason for limiting the possibilities of existence —
it may be of inter-planetary or of extraspacial existence -to those
friends of ours who have recently inhabited this planet.

Eliminating physical phenomena therefore for the present, suppose
that I am asked further : Do you consider that trance-utterances are
ever due to the agency of departed persons ? I am bound to say that,
as regards the content or intelligence of the message, I have known
cases which do very strongly indicate some form of access to a
persistent portion of the departed personality; and occasionally, though
rarely, the actual psychical agency of a deceased person is indicated.

But if by agency my hearers understand me to mean in all cases
conscious agency, direct communication with full consciousness of what
is going on, they must allow me to explain that of that in most cases
I am extremely doubtful. It seems to me much more often like a
dream intelligence or a sub-conscious part of the persistent mind that
we have access to, not a conscious part. It appears to me still a true
kind of telepathy; and telepathy from, as well as to, a sub-conscious
stratum. This use of the term is an extension of its ordinary one,
but it is an extension which appears to be required. (See Mrs.
Sidgwick, Proceedings S.P.R., vol. XV., pp. 17, 18.)

The medium when awakened docs not usually remember, is not
really conscious of, the communication which has been spoken or
written: not until he or she returns to the state of trance. Nor
should I expect the ostensible communicator, so long as he is anything
like ourselves, to remember or to be properly conscious of what has
been, as it were, drawn from his memory, until he too returns once
more into the same dream-like or semi-conscious or sub-conscious con-
dition. There may be all grades of recollection, however; analogous

1 Witness " Maxwell's demons " in theory, and nitrifying bacteria in what is
now accepted as botanical fact.

XLIII.]

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

to the various grades of reminiscence of ordinary dreams, as and
after we wake.

Moreover, it appears as if the portion of the deceased person which,
on this hypothesis, is once more in a manner materialised for us,
and with which we hold communication, is sometimes but a very
fragmentary portion1; so fragmentary that if at some other or at the
same time the same ostensible individual is operating through another
medium elsewhere, the two portions are, 1 believe, sometimes unaware
of what each is, so to speak, saying, and are liable to deny each other's
genuineness. Occasionally, however, in my experience, there has been
an indication that the bare fact of simultaneous communication through
two mediums is known or felt ; and I urge that more experiments and
observations are needed in this direction, which will, 1 hope, prove
an extremely helpful line of research if only it can be worked. The
difficulties are obviously great and the opportunities few. Anyhow
it will be agreed that this double communication from ostensibly one
intelligence, with the contents of each message unknown to the other
communicator, is an interesting and instructive phenomenon, if it is
real, and one that fits in excellently with Mr. Myers* luminous hypo-
thesis of the subliminal self.

For, to tell truth, I do not myself hold that the whole of any one
of us is incarnated in these terrestrial bodies ; certainly not in child-
hood ; more, but perhaps not so very much more, in adult life. What
is manifested in this body is, I venture to think likely, only a portion,
an individualised, a definite portion, of a much larger whole. What
the rest of me may be doing, for these few years while I am here,
I do not know : perhaps it is asleep ; but probably it is not so entirely
asleep with men of genius ; nor, perhaps, is it all completely inactive
with the people called "mediums."

Imagination in science is permissible, provided one's imaginings
are not treated as facts, nor even theories, but only as working
hypotheses, — a kind of hypothesis which, properly treated, is essential
to the progress of every scientific worker. Let us imagine, then,
as a working hypothesis, that our subliminal self — the other and

'Probably these limitations are all due to imperfections of the physical
mechanism, or rather to the difficulty of controlling it under the given circum-
stances,—

(a) of controlling it at all,

(6) of controlling it solely, i.e. unconfused with other influences,
(c) of controlling it continuously, without breaks analogous to
attention ;

l>ut whatever the limitations are due to, they are interesting and

.tingmdja

Address by the President,

[part

greater part of us— is in touch with another order of existence, and
that it is occasionally able to communicate, or somehow, perhaps
unconsciously, transmit to the fragment in the body, something of the
information accessible to it This guess, if permissible, would contain
a clue to a possible explanation of clairvoyance. We should then be
like icebergs floating in an ocean, with only a fraction exposed to sun
and air and observation : the rest— by far the greater bulk — sub-
merged in a connecting medium, submerged and occasionally in sub-
liminal or sub-aqueous contact with others, while still the peaks,
the visible bergs, are far separate.1

Or, reversiug the metaphor, we might liken our present state to
that of the hulls of ships submerged in a dim ocean among' many
strange beasts, propelled in a blind manner through space; proud,
perhaps, of accumulating many barnacles as decoration; only
recognising our destination by bumping against the dock wall:
and with no cognisance of the deck and the cabins, the spars and
the sails, no thought of the sextant and the compass and the captain,
no perception of the look-out on the mast, of the distant horizon,
no vision of objects far ahead, dangers to be avoided, destinations
to be reached, other ships to be spoken with by other means than
bodily contact, — a region of sunshine and cloud, of space, of perception,
and of intelligence, utterly inaccessible to the parts below the
waterline.

Incidentally, if one were permitted rather rashly to speculate, it
might be suggested that most of the disputes about re-incarnation
could be hypothetically reconciled by this hypothesis of the subliminal
self. Not the same individual portion need perhaps be incarnated
again, but another phase of the whole; and so gradually each aspect
might acquire the experience, the submerged experience, so to speak,
and the practical training, obtainable by incarnate life on one of
the vagrant lumps of matter known as habitable planets.

So also are the difficulties of birth and recent childhood, recent
nonentity, minimised by the subliminal self hypothesis. The suggestion
is an obvious one that as a body becomes gradually ready and the
child grows, so more and more of the total personality leaks^ as it
were, into it, until we get the adult individual as we know him:
sometimes more of the whole — what we call a great man : sometimes

1 Perhaps it may not be superfluous to say that an iceberg floats with only about
^th of its bulk above water.

" We feel that we are greater than we know.'

XL1II.]

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

less — a- deficient man. And death is the rejoining and re-uniting
of the temporarily almost dissevered and curiously educated fraction
to the whole. Shall such a mental entity be only capable of complete
and thorough incarnation? Shall it never in some dreamy and
semi-conscious or unconscious state influence another body, or take
any physical part in the scenes in which for a time it was so interested T
The opportunities appear to be scarce, and the phenomenon is rare;
but who is to say that it is non-existent; and who shall say that
the fact that the communications are vague, hesitating, uncertain,
sometimes mistaken, and never complete, — though no doubt there
are several grades towards completeness, — goes to prove that the
residue is not genuine? It is occasionally almost like trying to hold
a conversation with some one in his sleep : it is hard to judge of a
personality by that sort of test. Indeed, there are all grades of
brilliancy even in our own waking complete selves: not always are
we at our best; and odd conceptions might be formed of our intelli-
gence if a stranger judged us by our remarks on the weather or the
crops. I am told that Browning spoke in quite a commonplace
manner concerning the weather.

How often have we not found that the utterances of some eminent
person, even in his full bodily manifestation, do not come up to
our idea of him : an idea perhaps based on an acquaintance with a
record of his more fully developed personality in moments of
inspiration. There is a tale concerning Tennyson which I recently
heard ; it may not be true, but it is quite possible. A lady, a
worshipper of Tennyson, and long desirous of seeing him, was once
to her great joy invited to a dinner at which he sat opposite to her,
and she listened open-eared for his conversation. He spoke very
little, however, being apparently in an uninspired mood, not to say a
grumpy humour; and the only phrase she distinctly caught was,
"I like my mutton in chunks." That lady might easily have gone
away convinced that she had been the victim of a fraud, and that
some unpoetic person had been palmed off on her as " the bard," after
the manner of the dinner party in The Golden Butterfly.

The fact that a control" who frequently sends messages, brings
with him each time only the memory of previous messages through
the same medium, and is unaware of his other supposed manifesta-
tions through other mediums, is very suggestive of what we know
concerning secondary and multiple personalities. The comn^te or
complex personality itself may perhaps know all abou*
but with this complete personality we seem unable to

Address by the President,

[put

munication; we can so far only reach the fragments, and through
different mediums different fragments, as if— speaking of it as a kind
of incarnation, — as if the temporary incarnation were affected or regit
lated by the kind of body occupied, and could not manifest in identical
fashion when constrained by the limitations of different instruments
just as an executive musician would naturally appeal to different
emotions if given, alternately, a violin, a cornet, a flute, and a concer-
tina. We can hardly expect, on any view, to reach more than whit
we have supposed to be the fraction which had been manifested her*
in the flesh during earth life, but it appears as if we could not
reach so much as that — only a fragment of that. The specially
adapted and educated body and brain which it was wont to use is
no longer available, — the organ is broken, and the organist b
asked to manifest his identity on the harmonium of a country
church-
But neither telepathy nor yet the agency of deceased persons is
able to explain the asserted power of true clairvoyance properly
eo-called : the perception of things unknown to every mind of a human
order1; nor prediction of a kind other than inference.2 These are
great subjects, and I have something to say about them too, though
whether it is worth saying at the present time is very doubtful,
for I am not by any means convinced that either of these things
ever occurs. I will only say, therefore, in general, that the vague
hypothesis of a world-soul, or an immanent Mind, of which even
the totality of ourselves are only microscopic fragments, as our ordi-
narily known selves have been supposed to be more substantial
fragments of our entire selves — a Mind to which space and time are
oot the barriers and limitations which they appear to us — a Mind
to which the past, present, and future are not indeed all one, bat
yet in a manner perceivable at will as a simultaneity as well as a
sequence, and in which no transit or travel is necessary to pass from
one place to another, — I must say that a vague hypothesis of this
kind — a notion familiar to all philosophers — is often forced across

1 For instance, the reading of numbers or letters grasped at random and thrown
into a bag ; or of a piece of newspaper torn out anywhere and sealed up without
having been looked at, and the residue promptly burnt; if suoh a thing ever
•occurs.

9 If such a thing is conceivable as real prevision not deducible from a wide
knowledge or survey of contemporaneous events ; for instance, the winner of a
neck-and-neck race, or the exact date of some optional and as yet undecided
event. But these are not good instances, for it must be assumed posribU that
.the predicting agency might act so as to bring about fulfilment.

XLIII.]

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

my vision as I think over the problems of this great and wonderful
universe.

To suppose that we know it all : to suppose that we have grasped
its main outlines, that we realise pretty completely not only what
is in it, but the still more stupendous problem of what is not and
cannot be in it — is a presumptuous exercise of limited intelligence,
only possible to a certain very practical and useful order of brain,
which has good solid work of a commonplace kind to do in the world,
and has been restricted in its outlook, let us say by Providence, in
order that it may do that one thing and do it well. Some of these
gnostic persons have been men of science, others have been men of
letters, some of them again politicians and men of business : some
few of them have called themselves philosophers,1 but the world has
not thought them its greatest philosophers. The instinct of the world
in the long run, though only in the long run, is to be trusted ; and
the great men whom it has picked out as philosophers of the very
first magnitude — the philosopher Plato, of the older time, and the
philosopher Kant, of the more modern era— did not so limit their
conception of the possible ; nor have the greatest poets, those whom
humanity has canonised among its greatest poets — Virgil, let us say,
and Wordsworth and Tennyson — neither have they looked with dim
beclouded eyes on the present of the universe, or on the past and
the future of man.

Hear Tennyson on the origin of life and the antecedents of human
existence : —

1 One cannot bat sympathise to some extent with those philosophers who urge
that the progress of humanity has been achieved by attention to a development
of our full consciousness, and that reversion to the subconscious or to dream
states is a step back. It must be noted, however, that the adjective "subliminal,"
as we understand it, is not suggestive of subordinate or subsidiary, but is far
more nearly related to ** sublime": a statement which, considered objectively,
the philosophers in question would probably disallow. If they mean that for the
active and practical concerns of life consciousness must be our guide and our
adviser, I am with them ; but if they mean (as I am sure they do not, when
pressed) that inspiration is attained through consciousness, or that it is unlawful
and unfruitful to investigate the subconscious, where (I suggest) lie the roots of
the connection between mind and matter; then I must join issue with them.
So might an iceberg, glorying in its crisp solidity and sparkling pinnacles, resent
attention paid to its submerged subliminal supporting region, or to the saline
liquid out of which it arose, and into which in due course it will some day return.

Out of the deep, my child, out of the deep,
From that true world within the world we see,
Whereof our world is but the bounding shore.

Address by Hie President,

[part

Hear him also on the present, and on the possibilities of inter
communion : —

The Ghost in Man, the Ghost that once was Man,
But cannot wholly free itself from Man,
Are calling to each other thro* a dawn
Stranger than earth has ever seen ; the veil
Is rending, and the Voices of the day
Are heard across the Voices of the dark.

And yet again on the future, and the ultimate reconciliation of
matter and mind : —

And we, the poor earth's dying race, aud yet
No phantoms, watching from a phantom shore
Await the last and largest sense to make
The phantom walls of this illusion fade,
And show us that the world is wholly fair.

A quotation from Virgil, as translated by Mr. Myers, may be per
mitted even to one who has no claim to be a scholar. It is from the
speech of Anchises, in Book VI. of the JEnM^ in reply to ^Eneas's
question whether the departed ever wish to return to the flesh ; and
Anchises, while maintaining that the flesh was a burden well cast oft
takes occasion to assert the essential unity of life and of mind through-
out the universe: —

One Life through all the immense creation runs,
One Spirit is the moon's, the sea's, the sun's ;
All forms in the air that fly, on the earth that creep,
And the unknown nameless monsters of the deep —
Each breathing thing obeys oue Miud's control,
And in all substance is a single Soul.

And, lastly, let us hear Wordsworth in that immortal Ode which
hymns the Platonic doctrine of life and an ever-present though seldom
realised connecting link between the diverse orders of existence: —

Hence in a season of calm weather

Though inland far we be,
Our Souls have sight of that immortal sea

Which brought us hither,

Can in a moment travel thither,
And see the Children sport upon the shore,
And hear the mighty waters rolling evermore.

Meanwhile, what have we to do ? To inquire, to criticise, to dis-
cover, but also to live, — to live this life here and now : aided thereto,
it may be, by a laboriously acquired certainty that it is only an

XL1II.]

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

interlude in a more splendid drama. With some people, belief has
preceded and frustrated inquiry : others there are with whom investi-
gation has resulted in belief : and yet again others to whom belief
continues unattainable in spite of conscientious effort and research.
Those who feel assured of a future existence may be thankful; but
those who cannot feel so assured, with them also it is well, if they
apply their energies to service on this earthly plane, and reap the
wholesome and natural joys accessible to us in our present state.

Thanks to the human heart by which we live,
Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears,

To me the meanest flower that blows can give
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.

Digitized by

Google

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research.

PART XLIV.

June, 1902.

PROCEEDINGS OF GENERAL MEETINGS.

The 111th General Meeting of the Society was held at the West-
minster Town Hall on Friday, March 8th, 1901, at 8.30 p.m. ; the
President, Dr. Oliver Lodge, in the chair.

Papers were read in memory of Mr. F. W. H. Myers by the
President, Professor William James, Professor Charles Richet, and
Mr. Frank Podmore. These were afterwards published in full in
the Proceedings, Part XLII.

The 1 1 2th General Meeting was held in the same place on Friday,
April 19th, 1901, at 4 p.m. ; the President in the chair.

Dr. F. van Eeden read part of his "Account of Sittings with
Mrs. Thompson," which is printed below.

The 113th General Meeting was held in the same place on Friday,
May 17th, 1901, at 8.30 p.m. ; Mr. Frank Podmore in the chair.

Dr. Abraham Wallace read a paper entitled "Difficulties and
Disappointments in the Practical Application of Psychical Research ; —
the case of the missing stock-broker, Mr. Percy L. Foxwell."

The 114th General Meeting was held in the same place on Friday,
June 14th, 1901, at 4 p.m. ; Dr. Walter Leaf in the chair.

Mr. Frank Podmore read part of a paper by Dr. R. Hodgson on
" Some Cases of Secondary Pe M

Proceedings of General Meetings. [part

The 115th General Meeting was held in the Banqueting Hall, St
James' Restaurant, on Friday, November 29th, 1901, at 4 p.m. ; the
President in the chair.

A paper, communicated by Mr. J. 6. Piddington, and entitled " A
Record of Two Sittings with Mrs. Thompson," was read by Mr.
Piddington and Mr. N. W. Thomas. This paper is printed below.

The 116th General Meeting was held in the Westminster Town
Hall on Friday, January 31st, 1902, at 5 p.m.; the President in the
chair.

The President delivered an Address, which has since appeared in
the Proceedings, Part XLIII.

xliv.] Introduction to Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 61

INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORTS OF SITTINGS WITH

From time to time an oral account has been given at meetings of the
Society by various members of their experiences with the lady living
at Hampstead, Mrs. Thompson, who has been good enough to allow a
few personally introduced friends to sit with her for the purpose of
observing and recording the phenomena of so-called mediumship which
developed themselves in connection with her ; but so far no publication
in the Proceedings of any of these records has been made.

This delay is in accordance with the usual practice of the Society in
dealing with the most important cases which come under its investiga-
tion, opportunity being thus afforded for fuller light, in whatever
direction, to manifest itself. Mrs. Piper was under investigation for
several years before any report of her powers was published; and
though her case was different, being that of a paid medium, it is
obvious that the same kind of caution should be exercised, and similar
opportunity for growing experience should, if possible, be afforded, in
any case which appears to be of the first evidential rank.

The records of sittings with Mrs. Thompson now published constitute
only a small proportion of the whole, but they represent some of those
of which the notes were most carefully and exactly made; and they
give a fair idea or sample of the nature of the phenomenon — both at its
best and at its worst, — though indeed some private episodes in un-
reported sittings are held, by those with personal knowledge of
them, to be far superior to any here recorded.

The delay in this case has been useful since it has afforded oppor-
tunity for Dr. Hodgson to have six sittings with Mrs. Thompson.
These appear to have been of the kind above denominated " worst,"
and his report is decidedly unfavourable; indeed, he is strongly of
opinion that there was nothing of any value in them at all, and that
they suggest that in other cases also knowledge believed to have been

MRS. THOMPSON.

By Dr. Oliver Lodge, F.R.S.

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

[part

of supernormal origin might be traced to normal sources of information
if the sitters had been equally competent. This being so, it is im-
portant to have the fact recorded in our first publication ; and it has
been the wish of Mrs. Thompson herself that everything, whether
favourable or unfavourable, should be impartially published. Refer-
ence to her letter in the Journal for November, 1901, will show the
admirable position which she takes up in such matters ; her object has
been to help in our quest, to this end she has given up much time and
taken much trouble ; and anything in the nature of suppression, either
of suspicious circumstances or of hostile criticism, would be resented by
her, just as it would be contrary to the whole spirit and traditions of
the Society.

In these phenomena the first question is, whether the information
given is so far in accordance with facts as to be worthy of consideration.
Of this the reader can judge fairly from the records, so that no time
need be spent in discussing it. But it is impossible to state fully —
because no one knows, or can know — the exact circumstances under
which the knowledge was obtained and given out by the medium. The
value of the evidence, therefore, depends partly on the honesty of the
medium and partly on the competence of the observers. The latter
point may be judged of indirectly from the records, which show what
precautions were taken, (a) to prevent information reaching the medium
by normal means, (b) to distinguish information that could have reached
her normally from that which apparently could not.

The honesty of the medium is a more difficult problem ; because we
must recognise the possibility that she might either consciously or
unconsciously present knowledge obtained by ordinary means as if it
were acquired supernormally, which is precisely what in these cases is
meant by " deceit." It is not customary in ordinary life to associate
this word with any subconscious or unconscious condition, nor is it
customary to analyse it or to do anything but simply anathematise it,
and it may seem highly dangerous to be prepared to do anything else ;
yet on consideration it will be perceived that every piece of information
given must be acquired somehow, and the whole interest of the pheno-
menon from our present point of view depends primarily on whether the
information was acquired normally or not The first question before us
is whether the source of information can be shown to be supernormal ;
it is therefore necessary to assume that whenever the knowledge could
have been acquired normally it was so acquired. Hence a discussion
of normal means of obtaining information, and how far they maybe
presumed to go, becomes of the essence of the question.

Digitized by

xliv.] Introduction to Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 63

In fairness to a medium, it must be admitted that it is not always
easy to be certain of the limits of the power of normal acquisition, or to
set bounds to the power of our organs of sense, so as to be able to
discriminate clearly where sense-perception merges into a form of clair-
voyance or crystal-vision lucidity. Thus, take the case of a lady who,
holding an unwrapped copy of the Times before her face to act as a fire
screen, saw a few hours later in a glass sphere an announcement of a
death which subsequent investigation showed to be contained in its
obituary column (see Proceedings S.P.R., vol. V., p. 507 ; a similar case
also in the Journal S.P.R., vol. I., p. 246) ; it would, of course, have to be
assumed that she had obtained the information through normal vision
with her eyes, even though genuinely unconscious of the fact. Or take,
again, the case where the contents of a letter, delivered into the post-
box of a house, becomes known in a dream to a person who believes
himself to have remained in bed, normally quite unaware of any such
letter (I cannot now find a record of the case of which this is my
recollection ; but there is something like it in Phantasms of the Living,
vol. I., p. 375 ; also vol. II., pp. 385 and 444 ; also in Proceedings S.P.R.,
vol. XIV., pp. 279 and 280) ; the hypothesis would at least have to be
considered that in a state of somnambulism he had read the letter and
sealed it up again, for some other member of the family to open later.

Or take the case of Mrs. Piper, who ostensibly read part of a letter,
which I gave her, by the process of undoing it and applying it to the
top of her head : it would have to be assumed that she had glimpsed
its contents by her normal eyesight, unless evidence to the contrary
were strong. Such a case might, of course, be one of conscious fraud :
the application of the letter to the top of the head being then a mere
deceitful artifice to divert attention from the real intervals of normal
reading.

Nevertheless it is quite imaginable, in any given case, that the
medium might genuinely think she had got the whole of the informa-
tion in a supernormal way, while the truth was that some part of it.
or even the whole, had been really obtained normally, or, if not quite
normally, yet by hyperesthesia — extra quickness of the appropriate
sense organs.

It needs but a small acquaintance with hypnotic and automatic
phenomena to be well aware that the hypnotic subject or automatist
is frequently deceived as to the source of his impressions; not only
may he suppose that an impression originated in his own mind when
it really came from without (e.g. from the hypnotist) or vice versa ; but
also he may suppose it came through one sense when it provably came

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

[part

through another. A little careful analysis of our own experience will
show that we sometimes make similar errors as to the sources of impres-
sions in ordinary daily life. Examples of the kind referred to are con-
tained in the Proceedings S.P.R., vol. IV., pp. 532-4. In the first case a
boy appeared to read clairvoyantly or telepathically the number of the
page of a book held facing the agent, but with its back to the boy;
and when asked to indicate the place where the number was, pointed
to the back of the book just opposite the number's true position.
Nevertheless there is reason to believe that the number was really
seen reflected in the cornea of the eye of the " agent " or person facing
him, though this image would certainly be an extremely small thing
to read, and could hardly be legible to a person not somewhat hyper-
sensitive. Nevertheless M. Bergson, who observed the fact and
suggested this explanation, felt sure that the boy's real belief was in
accordance with his own statement, and accordingly supposes it to be a
case of simulation ineonscient.

The second example is referred to more at length in the Journal
S.P.R., vol. I., p. 84, where Mrs. Sidgwick reports on a case of reading
or glimpsing with elaborately bandaged eyes through chinks so small
and deceptive that the observer could hardly tell with which eye he
was dimly seeing, and might conceivably be unaware that he was
seeing in a normal way at all.

Certainly in cases of hypnosis, where suggestion may be dominant,
it is easy to suppose that the subject may believe himself to be
receiving impressions in any way which is either actually or artificially
in the mind of the operator ; and it is a familiar fact that suggestions
which are given in one state often take effect as if they were quite
spontaneous when the subject has entered another state, no connection
between the two states being remembered. (See a number of curious
instances observed and recorded by Mr. Gurney in Proceedings S.P.R,
vol. IV., pp. 268 et seq.)

There is therefore a further difficulty when an attempt is made to
discriminate between what a medium knows in her own proper person
and what she knows in trance or in her secondary personality. In
hypnotic experience it is usually found possible to distinguish these
two reservoirs of knowledge or memory from each other, and to find
that they are independent, or at least that they consistently simulate
independence. There seem to be all grades of this independence of
memory in different states. (See especially Gurney's article in Pro-
ceedings S.P.R., vol. IV., p. 518, etc. ; also the report by Dr. Milne
Bramwell, vol. XII., pp. 193-5 ; see also, for something of the same

xliv.] Introduction to Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 65

sort in secondary personality, the Leonie case, vol. V., p. 397.) But
such a hypothesis is too dangerous and lax to be applied to the present
instance. It is quite possible that the entranced medium may not be
fully aware of some things that have been told to the medium in her
ordinary state ; but for evidential purposes it must obviously always
be assumed otherwise. Everything known to the normal Mrs.
Thompson must be considered equally known to the ostensible
" control " speaking with Mrs. Thompson's mouth.

If it had been found in any one case that she had deliberately
deceived a sitter, this would of course throw grave doubt on all other
cases, even those in which it appeared that no deceit was possible.
Now, she does, when in trance, often refer to facts known to her when
in her normal condition; the "control" seeming sometimes aware,
and sometimes unaware, whether the facts are so known or not. But
the sitters who have had most experience of her trances (especially
Mr. Piddington and Mrs. Verrall) have been struck by her constantly
telling them — either during the trance or afterwards — that certain
facts were so known to her normal state, and are not to be regarded
as 8upernormally known. Instances of this will be found in the
narratives which follow.

On the other hand, there are cases in which, without any such
warning to the sitters, she has made statements about special facts as
if they came to her supernormally which (a) she might have learnt (e.g.
Miss Harrison's names, see Mrs. VerraH's paper, pp. 208-210) or (b) there
is strong evidence that she did learn by normal means. Cases like
these are what in the subsequent discussion we call " suspicious circum-
stances," and it is on them that Dr. Hodgson's unfavourable judgment
depends.

As I have already indicated, persons who are familiar with automatic
phenomena will admit that it is possible that Mrs. Thompson might
have learnt these facts unconsciously and given them out with no
deliberate intention to deceive. And in favour of this it may be urged
that a witness who watched an incident of the kind (see below,
p. 162) had the impression that it was to be so interpreted. On
the other hand, Dr. Hodgson, who did not see such an incident occur,
but had strong reason to think it had occurred, believes that Mrs.
Thompson acted consciously and deliberately. Plainly, each reader
must be left to form his own judgment on these incidents.

Whatever view is taken, we must all admit that a certain amount of
what may, in the technical sense, be called " deception " is involved, or
is liable to be involved, in the phenomenon for the reasons above given.

Dr. Oliver Lodge.

[PAK

This deception need not in any case be voluntary, and its occurrence
may depend on a certain want of co-ordination between different strati
of personality in the medium — if it be supposed that a " control " is a
secondary personality, — so that information conveyed from one stratum
may be received and given forth as a geuuine supernormal message by
another stratum, having been misinterpreted and perhaps distorted in
the process of transfer.

It must be noted, however, that in the case of Mrs. Thompson such
instances of apparently unconscious transmission of information, without
cognisance of its source, seem to have been only occasional, and do not
in any way suggest the existence of an organised subliminal fraudulent
scheme; nor do they indicate an elaborately organised and complex
scheme of subliminal romance, such as Professor Flournoy experienced
in the case of H&ene Smith, many of the elements in which he traced
to normal sources, though there was every reason to suppose that the
medium was unaware of their real origin.

I myself have been accorded opportunities of sitting with Mrs.
Thompson many times, sometimes with Mr. Myers, sometimes alone,
and I have become impressed with her absolute sincerity, and real
desire, not always successful, to avoid every normal assistance or other
aid; which aid, when employed, while it may for the moment
fictitiously appear to improve the phenomenon, really undermines its
most essential feature.

I propose now first to quote, from the Report of the Psychological
Congress in Paris, Mr. Myers' general introduction ; then to give the
series of Dr. Van Eeden, and of the sitter known as Mr. Wilson ; then
to give Dr. Hodgson's report, together with some observations of a
similar character, as noted by Miss Johnson; and to conclude with
the series of Mrs. Verrall.

It is not to be supposed that this collection represents any large
proportion of all the work that Mrs. Thompson has been good enough
to do for the Society, but it is all that we propose to publish at the
present time.

xliv.] Trance-Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

II.

ON THE TRANCE-PHENOMENA OF MRS. THOMPSON.

I. — Trance is a name applied to a form of automatism, whether
healthy or morbid, in which the automatist appears to be in some
way altered, or even asleep, but in which he may speak or write
certain matter of which his normal personality is ignorant at the
time, and which it rarely remembers on his return to waking life.
If there appears to be not merely a modification but a substitution
of personality in the trance, it is called possession. Trance occurs
spontaneously in so-called somnambulism, as a result of disease in
hysteria, and as a result of suggestion, etc., in hypnotic states. A
fuller analysis shows classes which slide into each other in various
ways.

1. The trance may be simulated and the utterances fraudulent;
the facts which they contain having been previously learnt, or being
acquired at the time by a " fishing " process.

This is usually the case with professional clairvoyantes.

2. The trance may be genuine, but morbid ; and the utterances
incoherent or in other ways degenerative, even when showing memory
or accuracy greater than normal.

This is the case in hysteria, so-called demoniacal possession, etc.
This group of cases has been admirably analysed by Drs. Pierre
Janet, Binet, etc., in France : Drs. Breuer and Freud, etc., in Austria :
and elsewhere.

3. The trance may be genuine and healthy, and the utterances
coherent, but containing no actual fact unknown to the automatist.

1 Reprinted by permission from the IV* Congres InterncUional de Psychologit:
Compte rendu den Stances et Texte des Afe'moires (Paris, 1901), pp. 113-121. Some
obvious misprints in the report, the proofs of which had not been submitted to
Mr. Myers, are here corrected.

By the Latk F. W. H. Myers.1

Introduction.

F. W. H. Myers.

[past

This is sometimes the case in hypnotic trance ; and the " inspiration
of genius " may approach this type, which seems to be illustrated by
Prof. Flournoy's subject, Mile. Helene Smith.

4. The trance may be genuine and healthy, and the utterances
may contain facts not known to the automatist, but known to other
persons present, and thus possibly reached by telepathy; or existent
elsewhere, and thus possibly reached by telcesthesia.

5. The trance may be genuine and healthy, and the utterances may
contain facts not previously known to the subject nor always known
to the observers, but verifiable, and such as might probably be included
in the memory of certain definite deceased persons, from whom they
profess to come. This form of trance may suggest a temporary s*^
siilution of personality.

II. — During the past 25 years I have seen many specimens of the
three former of these classes, and a few of the two latter and more
interesting types. Records of the Rev. W. Stainton Moses' case, and
of Mrs. Piper's case, with others analogous, have been printed in the
S.P.B. Proceedings. I have now to describe a third well-marked
case of this type, — the case of Mrs. Thompson.

This case, while quite independent, is closely parallel to Mrs. Piper's,
I hope to produce, in a longer paper to appear in Proceedings S.P.It.,
a series of testimonies, from a large group of competent witnesses,
who assert that facts have been uttered to them through Mrs. Thompson
entranced which could not have become known to her in any normal
way.

The hypotheses of fraudulent preparation and of chance-coincidence
appear to be quite excluded. There seems to be some telaesthesia and
some telepathy ; but most of the matter given suggests the character
and the memory of certain deceased persons, from whom the messages
do in fact profess to come.

IIL — I claim that this substitution of personality, or spirit-control, or
possession, or pnewmaturgy, is a normal forward step in the evolution of
our race. I claim that a spirit exists in man, and that it is healthy
and desirable that this spirit should be thus capable of partial and
temporary dissociation from the organism ; — itself then enjoying an
increased freedom and vision, and also thereby allowing some departed
spirit to make use of the partially vacated organism for the sake of
communication with other spirits still incarnate on earth. I claim that
much knowledge has already thus been acquired, while much more is
likely to follow.

xliv.] Trance-Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

Case of Mrs. Thompson.

Following on this introduction, it seems best to give, in such brief
form as my limits allow, a few details which may answer obvious
inquiries, and which may prove useful to persons who may have the
chance of investigating similar cases.

It is through the kind permission and co-operation of Mr. and Mrs.
Edmond Thompson, of Hampstead, London, N.W., that I am enabled
to present a record — inevitably imperfect indeed, yet fairly representa-
tive—of certain phenomena which have accompanied Mrs. Thompson
from childhood down to the present day. The case is the more
interesting in that these phenomena arose among a group of persons
unfamiliar with such experiences, and have ever since been closely
linked with Mrs. Thompson's own private life and family affections.
Mrs. Thompson was born in 1868, — the daughter of an architect in
Birmingham. Mr. Thompson, whom she married in 1886, then held
an important post in a firm of merchants, and has now for some years
conducted a business of his own as importer of isinglass in the City of
London. Mrs. Thompson thus is not, nor ever has been, a paid or
professional medium.

Mrs. Thompson's distinct realisation of her own powers dates only
from 1896, when, in consequence of certain perplexing experiences, she
sought advice of Mr. F. W. Thurstan, a graduate of Cambridge, long
known to me, who has rendered great service to this research by
affording opportunities (at considerable expense of time and trouble to
himself) for the recognition and development of psychical gifts. Mrs.
Thompson, who was already interested in spiritualism, saw the
announcement of Mr. Thurstan's meetings, and attended them for
some time. Introduced by his kindness to Mr. and Mrs. Thompson,
I have known them intimately since 1898 ; and they have agreed with
me that it is the clear duty of persons possessed of supernormal powers
to keep an accurate record of phenomena, and to publish so much of
that record as may be possible with serious care. For what follows,
therefore, I claim entire genuineness. I believe that there has been no
attempt whatever to exaggerate any incident, but an honest desire on
the part of both Mr. and Mrs. Thompson to utilise for .the benefit of
Science a gift which they fully recognise as independent of personal
merit ; — a trust placed in the hands of individuals selected by ■n*ln 1ftw
as yet unknown.

I. — History of the Case.

F. W. H. Myers.

[PAKT

Mrs. Thompson, I would add, is an active, vigorous, practical person:
interested in her household and her children, and in the ordinary
amusements of young English ladies, as bicycling, the theatre. She
is not of morbid, nor even of specially reflective or religious tempera-
ment. No one would think of her as the possessor of supernormal

These, with Mrs. Thompson, cover nearly the whole range of
automatism already familiar to the student.

1. In the first place, Mrs. Thompson frequently sees spirits standing
in the room, who sometimes, though not always, indicate their identity.
Sometimes these figures form scenes, like the scenes discerned in
crystals, but life-size. Thus a glove-fight which my son had witnessed
at Eton was partially reproduced as though by figures standing behind
him. Similar auditory impressions are sometimes also received, re
sembling either internal or external voices, heard by Mrs. Thompson
alone.

2. Writing is sometimes seen on walls, etc. ; again resembling tilt-
writing seen in crystals.

3. Pictures are often seen in a glass-ball (crystal). These pictures
fall into the ordinary categories. Some of them seem meaningless
and dream-like; some of them represent scenes actually passing else-
where ; some of them are symbolic of future events. Sentences some-
times appear; which, oddly enough, look to Mrs. Thompson (who
alone has seen them) just like scraps of coarse printing ; — as though a
piece of newspaper were held beneath the ball. There have even
seemed to be ragged edges, as though the paper had been torn. Such
indications are of interest, on the assumption that the pictures may
come from outside her own mind, as seeming to show that it may be
easier to produce a picture — in this case a picture of printed words—
which is in some way copied from objects materially existent already.

4. Mrs. Thompson sometimes writes automatically, in a waking state.

5. But such writing is generally produced during a brief period of
sleep or trance. There will be an impulse to write, followed almost at
once by unconsciousness; and scrawls, more or less legible, will be
found on awaking.

6. But the most frequent mode of communication is by speech in
trance; intermingled with occasional writing, and claiming to come
from some definite spirit who " controls."

The entry into the trance is swift and gentle. As a rule there is a

gifts.

II. — Modes in which Messages are given.

XLIV.]

Trance-Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

mere closure of the eyelids as in sudden sleep. If the control be an
unfamiliar one, there may be a few deep inspirations. The awaking
also is a mere opening of the eyes, — sometimes with a look of bewilder-
ment. If the sitting has been a success, there is a feeling of rest and
refreshment, — which may indeed develop into unusual peace and joy.
The impression made on the observer is that the trance is as natural as
ordinary sleep. Mrs. Thompson believes that her health has derived
marked benefit from these trances.

In selecting sitters I have naturally aimed at getting persons who
were unknown to her, and not giving hints or suggesting replies. I
naturally also wished to give opportunities to savants, and especially
to colleagues on the S.P.R. Council, such as Sir W. Crookes, Professor
Sidgwick, etc. Experience soon showed that it was practically unim-
portant whether Mrs. Thompson knew the sitter beforehand or not.
The quality of the messages has not been perceptibly modified by this
fact. Most of the best messages, in fact, have been given to absolute
strangers, while persons of whom much could easily have been learnt —
as Sir W. Crookes, Professor and Mrs. Sidgwick, Dr. Hodgson, etc. —
have obtained practically nothing. I can, however, perceive to some
extent on what circumstances success depends. Success depends partly
on the sensitivity of the sitter himself — when such sensitivity happens
to meet Mrs. Thompson's — in some way which we cannot explain.
But success depends much more on the question whether there is any
departed friend who is eager to communicate with the survivor, and
who has also learnt the way in which to do so.

In this, as in almost all points, Dr. Hodgson's conclusions, drawn
from his numerous sittings with Mrs. Piper, are confirmed by my own
observation with Mrs. Thompson. He had already observed that he
obtained the best results when he acted on the spirit-hypothesis; —
dealt with the sources of information as if they were just what they
professed to be, and thus got from each spirit in turn all that it could
give him.

Still more markedly, I repeat, is this the case with Mrs. Thompson.
The knowledge given — whether consisting of earth-memories or (as
appears) of actual fresh observation of things on earth, made from the
spiritual world — arranges itself most naturally, almost inevitably,
under the names of certain informants around whose special memories,
and powers of fresh acquisition, the scattered facts and ideas emitted
are seen to cohere. One is, in fact, talking to a series of friends, each

III.— Choice of Sitter*.

F. W. H. Myers.

[part

of whom has a characteristic, but limited, budget of news to tell one, —
and also a characteristic, but limited, power of observation or collec-
tion of fresh facts. I find that the important thing is to interest if
possible (on behalf of each fresh sitter) certain departed friends of my
own, — some of them already familiar with these inquiries before their
decease. If these or similar willing and capable spirits will intervene,
some measure of truth is sure to follow. In this, as in an earthly
inquiry, I have to work outwards from a small nucleus of persons and
ideas already intimately known. Other sitters (as Dr. van Eeden)
have had the same experience with their own special groups.

IV. — Arrangement of Sittings.

The actual sittings are of the simplest type. I bring an anonymous
stranger into a room where Mrs. Thompson is, and we simply await
her trance. I sometimes ask my anonymous friend to remain silent
(if, for instance, his accent should give some clue to nationality) or
else we talk together on trivial topics until Mrs. Thompson's light trance
supervenes, — with no external symptom except a closing of the eyes
and certain slight differences in manner. It does not matter where
the visitor sits, nor is any contact desired. There is no " fishing " for
information. I usually converse myself with the "control"; and in
some of the best sittings I have been as ignorant as Mrs. Thompson
herself of the family history, etc., of the sitter. To give one instance
only, this was well exemplified in the case of Miss A. D. Sedgwick (the
American novelist), whom I took with me for a sitting on the very day
on which I made her acquaintance. I knew Miss Sedgwick's name and
her books ; Mrs. Thompson knew nothing of her whatever, but a vein
of memories was at once opened which developed with so much of
intimate family matter that only a scanty selection from what was said
can be offered for publication. This series of memories was fully
begun by an alleged spirit-friend of Miss Sedgwick's, while I alone
was the interlocutor. Afterwards Miss Sedgwick joined in, but gave
no hints ; and indeed various facts were given to her which lay quite
outside her own memory. This last remark suggests a brief review of
the habitual contents of these messages.

V. — Tlie Matter gioen falls under Four Main Classes, whose Proportions
vary with the Sitter.

(a) Dream-like and confused talk, with mistakes and occasional
approximations. This probably proceeds mainly from Mrs. Thompson's
own subliminal self, and occurs when there is no valid " control." It

Digitized by

LIV.]

Trance-Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

oes not seem connected with any clear consciousness, and when it
•ccurs now it is usually stopped by some " control," who puts an end
o the imperfect trance; — much as one rouses oneself up from a
onfusing doze, so as either to wake or to sleep properly.

(b) Facts lying beyond the sensory range, but not necessarily
m plying discarnate spirits as their source. Such are perceptions of
events actually occurring at a distance, or of events which have
occurred in the past or will occur in the future. It is at present
impossible to say how far Mrs. Thompson's own subliminal self, cr
bow far any discarnate fellow-worker, is responsible for the singularly
varied mass of knowledge thus given.

(c) Next come facts purporting to proceed from discarnate spirits,
—and such as might probably exist in their memories. But in this
case, of course, as in Mrs. Piper's, the majority of these facts exist also
in the minds of the sitters, so that it is possible to argue that they
are telepathically drawn from thence by the sensitive's subliminal
faculty, without any intervention of spirits of the departed.

(d) There remains a small but significant group of facts which are
not known to the sitters, but which would have been known to the
departed persons from whom they profess to come; — or (and this is
still more curious) facts which are such that those departed persons
would have been interested in learning them after death. The gradual,
incidental accumulation of facts of this type becomes at last a strong
argument for the authenticity of the alleged communications.

I believe, then, that I have good reason for ascribing many of these
messages to definite surviving personalities, known while on earth to
friends of mine whose presence with Mrs. Thompson has evoked the
messages, or to myself.

I believe that most of these messages are uttered through Mrs.
Thompson's organism by spirits who for the time inform or " possess "
that organism ; and that some are received by her spirit in the unseen
world, directly from other spirits, and are then partially remembered,
so that the sensitive can record them on emerging from the ecstatic
state.

But although I cannot ignore the evidence for these extreme hypo-
theses, I by no means wish to assert that all the phenomena in this or
in any similar case proceed from departed spirits. Rather, I am
inclined to hold that whenever an incarnate spirit is sufficiently
released from bodily trammels to hold any conscious intercourse with
the unseen world, that intercourse will inevitably include various
types of communication. I think that there is likely to be knowledge

Digitized by

F. W. H. Myers.

[PART

derived telepathically from incarnate as well as from discarnate spirits ;
— and also telsesthetic or clairvoyant knowledge of actual scenes, past,
present, or future, which lie beyond sensory reach. If I speak with t
friend on this earth I am at the same time conscious in many ways
of the earthly environment; — and similarly I imagine that even %
slight and momentary introduction into that unseen world introduces
the spirit to influences of that still more complex environment,
mingled in ways which we cannot as yet disentangle. The sensitive
may thus exercise concurrently several forms of sensitivity ; — receiving
messages of all degrees of directness, and perceptions of all degrees of
clarity.

These ideas are far removed from ordinary scientific experience. It
may still seem, I fear, almost impertinent to offer them for the con-
sideration of a Congress of savants. Yet I ask that this case be
considered along with two other cases brought forward at the same
Congress : — namely, Professor Flournoy's case of pseudo-possession in
Mile. Hel&ne Smith, and Dr. Morton Prince's case of multiplex
personality in " Sally Beauchamp." 1 It is hard to say which of these
cases, if narrated fifty years or even twenty years ago, would have been
considered the most bizarre and impossible. Yet all competent
psychologists will now agree in considering Professor Flournoy's and
Dr. Prince's cases as records of high value to the student of human
personality. Before setting my case aside as unworthy of similar
consideration, I invite psychologists to study Part XXXIII. (vol
XIII.) of the S.P.B. Proceedings, where Dr. Hodgson has discussed
at length the closely similar case of Mrs. Piper. If that record be
compared with the forthcoming record of Mrs. Thompson's case, in
[the present Part] of the same Proceedings, it may perhaps be felt, by
some at least of the rising generation of psychologists, that few tasks
can be more interesting and important than that of discovering, in-
vestigating, and comparing as many as possible of these extraordinary
variations in the ordinary human type — variations which, although
often degenerative, are also sometimes, in my view, distinctly and
rapidly evolutive in their tendency.

»See Proceedings S.P.R., vol. XV., p. 466.

XLIV.]

Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

III.

ACCOUNT OF SITTINGS WITH MRS. THOMPSON.

By Dr. F. van Ekden
(of Bussum, Holland).

We may say of students of psychical phenomena that they fall into
three different groups : — the complete disbelievers, the spiritualists, and
the non-spiritualists.

Among the serious men of science who have taken the matter in
hand patiently and without prejudice, complete disbelievers are
becoming scarce. We need not here discuss their opinion.

But the believers in the genuineness of the phenomena are still
divided into two well-defined parties.

The first group accepts almost completely the view of the spiritists
and believes in the influence of spirits, of impalpable and, in the
ordinary way, imperceptible beings, upon the mind and body of a
living human being.

The second group acknowledges the facts as extraordinary and
inexplicable by ordinary causes, but does not admit that as yet any-
thing has been discovered which forces us inevitably to believe in the
existence of spirits. Everything may perhaps be explained, according
to them, by faculties personal to the medium, such as telepathy and
clairvoyance.

To the first group belong, as we all know, very distinguished
men of science, such as Alfred Russel Wallace and Sir William Crookes,
and also the man whose loss we so deeply deplore, Frederic Myers.

To the second group belonged, I believe, that other President of this
Society, whose loss we all regret, Professor Sidgwick ; and to it there
still belong Mr. Podma^nd others.
The first theory is ■^**he simpler.

the possibility of the
material conditions ol
ceivable for us, all t[
conception

explanation. Once given
stence of beings whose
ptible and even incon-
As a philosophical
probable, the

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[part

contrary, as a matter of probability, we must agree that it is far more
likely that there exists an infinity of imperceptible beings, even in oar
immediate proximity, than that we should be the ultimate form of
life, or that we should have reached an exhaustive power of perception
of other living beings. We know that our sensory perception is limited
to five modes, or channels, each of them embracing only a small part
of an infinite scale of vibratory motions. It is, philosophically speak-
ing, quite as absurd to believe that every form of life and existence
must fall under our power of observation, as that there are no other
celestial bodies but those which our eyes can see.

We must keep in mind the philosophical tenet, well expressed by
Spinoza, and as far as I know never contradicted or considered open
to contradiction, that God's infinity has an infinite number of modes :
" Infinite infinitis modis ; " that is to say, there is not only infinity in
sequence of time, or in extension of space, but also in diversity of
being at the same place and at the same time.

The second group of observers, however, while accepting the
philosophical possibility, or even probability, of the existence of
other beings, angels or spirits, near us and able to exert influence
upon us, maintain that it is scientifically right to oppose as long
as possible the theory of their agency or intervention to account for
the phenomena. Premature use of such a theory would indeed be
far too easy a method and not in accordance with scientific economy,
which prescribes the utmost restriction in the employment of final
causes and the utmost care in every step towards the unknown.

Telepathy and clairvoyance being once recognised as realities, and the
marvellous faculties of the unconscious or subliminal mind being taken
into consideration, we must not speak of spirits until it becomes
absolutely necessary.

This second platform seems to be quite unassailable from the
theoretical side. It is always very difficult to prove strictly that a
certain fact has been out of reach of the medium's unconscious observa-
tion during the whole of his lifetime ; and this difficulty grows into
absolute impossibility, if we admit a faculty like clairvoyance, of which
we cannot tell if it has any limits either in space or in time.

Let me give an instance from my own experience with Mrs.
Thompson. We had taken every precaution at my first sitting that
the medium should hear nothing about my coming, my name, or my
nationality. I came unexpectedly, and remained an almost silent
witness. And yet, at the first sitting, the name Frederick — my
Christian name and that of my father — was given; an apparent

XLIV.]

Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

attempt was made to pronounce my surname ("Fori," "Fondaiin"),
and an allusion was made to my medical profession.

At my second sitting, though I had not seen Mrs. Thompson in the
interval, the name " van Eeden " was given in full, pronounced as if it
were read by an Englishman (Eden), also the name of my country
("Netherlands"), and the Christian names of my wife ("Martha") and
of one of my children were given, and at the beginning of the third
sitting the name of the place where I live ("Bussum ").

These different names were given more or less at random, not
always in their proper relation, but nevertheless in such a way that
simple guessing was out of the question. She began, e.g. (at the third
sitting) to call me " Mr. Bostim," " Busspm " or " Bussum," mistaking
the name of my place for my own name; then she asked what
"Netherlands" meant; she said at the first sitting that I had a
relation called Frederik ; at the third, that it was my own name, and
that I was a " gardener of Eden," and so on. At each following sitting
this confusion became a little clearer in her mind.

To explain this, coincidence will not do, as every one who studies
the notes must acknowledge. Four suppositions are possible :

(1) Conscious fraud. This presupposes a system of secret informa-
tion, a detective service, of incredible extent and precision. I may say
that to know Mrs. Thompson is to discard this idea.

(2) Unconscious fraud. On this hypothesis, it is necessary to assume
that by some marvellous power of deduction the medium can connect
names, seen here and there on letters, cards, or papers, with an
unknown visitor whom she sees for the first time.

(3) Information by spirits. This is the explanation given by Mrs.
Thompson herself. On this view, the spirits talk through her mouth,
while she herself is dreaming about other things. She tells her dreams
sometimes after waking up.

(4) Clairvoyance and telepathy. According to this theory, Mrs.
Thompson reads particulars about me from my mind or from else-
where, unconsciously, and constructs a dramatic figure, a fantastic
being, a spirit, who is supposed to tell her all this.

How can we eliminate the supposition of imposture 1
The possibility of fraud seemed untenable. I got information about
objects whose origin was known only to myself. I brought a lock of
hair of a man who had lived and died at Utrecht, and the hair was
immediately connected with that name, and on subsequent occasions
referred to as the " Utrecht hair.11 I brought a piece of clothing that
had belonged to a young man who had committed suicide. Nobody in

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[past

the world knew that I had kept it, nor that I had taken it to England
with me for this purpose, and yet I got an exact description of the
young man and the manner of his suicide, and even his Christian

For me this excluded all fraud or coincidence.

Certainly, this evidence would not be convincing for anybody who
doubted my faculty of memory and observation, or my veracity. But
no evidence is in itself sufficient.. It all requires repetition and corro-
boration by others. This is exactly what we look for.

The choice between spirits and telepathy remains. But the difficulties
involved are deeper and more complicated than we might think at first
sight.

The telepathic hypothesis implies that my thoughts were communi-
cated, without ordinary means, to the mind of the medium. But at
what distance ? May we take for granted that this way of communi-
cation, concerning which we have no knowledge whatever, falls under
the laws of light and sound ? Or can there be only telepathy when
I am in the same room, or when I make an effort of volition ? And
how can we avoid or exclude the telepathic influence of ail other
persons in all other parts of the world?

At first sight one would say that telepathy was excluded when the
medium tells me a thing I did not know myself. This has, indeed,
been considered by many previous researchers as a crucial test.

But let us consider this crucial test well, for we here come across an
unscientific or unphilosophical method of reasoning, very common
indeed, but most misleading. To rely on this test involves a tacit
assumption of knowledge which we do not as a matter of fact possess,
Our present knowledge of the conditions of telepathy is not know-
ledge, but simply a sort of vague idea of what is likely, an " Ahnung,"
as the Germans say.

We think it likely that distances count in telepathy, distances in
time and in space ; in the case of experiments, we think it most likely
that thero will only be telepathic influence between two persons at
the same time in the same room, one of them making an effort of
volition, the other remaining passive. But we have no right to
maintain that these conditions are essential.

Who could contradict me if I were to say that the information
which was unknown to me was obtained by telepathic action from
some other person somewhere in Holland or in some other part of
the world ?

Still more vague and ill-defined are our notions of clairvoyance.

name was given.

xliv.] Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 79

And it is just because our knowledge of its conditions and laws' is so
small that we can explain nearly everything by it, and that conse-
quently it is impossible to talk of crucial tests.

We all know that our subliminal part is a first-rate dramatist. Our
dreams are comedies or dramas most astonishing to ourselves. We
can order hypnotised persons to perform this or that rMe, and they
will act their part with wonderful talent and accuracy.

In this way, every spirit that is represented, no matter in how
life-like and convincing a manner, can be explained away. If we
admit the faculty of clairvoyance, which can procure information
concerning everything and everybody, concerning all places and all
times, concerning the past and the future, what miracle of evidence
can the spirit produce that will outweigh the fatal objection that he
is simply a dramatic creature of the medium's brain, constructed with
the help of absolutely unlimited information 1

For instance, the young man who had committed suicide gave as
proofs of his identity Dutch names of places and persons which were
not at all in my mind at the moment This might have been un-
conscious telepathy. At the same time proper names were given which
I had never heard myself. I did not even know such names existed.
Yet later, in Holland, I came across people who bore these very names,
though their connection (if any) with the young man I could not find
out. But what value could they have as proof of identity ? Could
we not always say that the medium, being clairvoyant, had seen these
nan.es somehow in connection with the young man, and so used them
to complete the vraisemblance of her creation ?

Thus it is clear that evidence of this kind must remain incon-
clusive.

On the other hand, we know nothing of the conditions under which
spirits may or must work on the human brain, nor whether distances
count or not in that regard, any more than we do in the case of
telepathy.

As a very curious observation, I may relate the following: The
young man, as mentioned in the notes of my sittings, had recovered
from his first attempt at suicide (though the control, " Nelly/' did not
find out this particular), but the wound in his throat left his voice
hoarse and gave him a peculiar little cough. As soon as I came near
Mrs. Thompson with the piece of clothing, her voice became more or
less hoarse, and by and bye the same peculiar little cough appeared,
and grew more accentuated at each subsequent sitting. After three
sittings it kept on even in the intervals between the sittings, and

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[part

in the end did not leave her altogether until I had left England, taking
with me the piece of clothing — a flannel vest.

Here distance seemed really to be of import, and, what is most
curious, the influence seemed to emanate from an inanimate object
It reminded me of what a French author called "V&me des chases,"
the soul of things.

Now, it is just as difficult to disprove the other view, that there is
no telepathy, no clairvoyance at all in these phenomena, but that
everything is the work of spirits. According to this view — as main-
tained by superior minds like A. Russel Wallace — spirits surround us
everywhere and always, and are constantly occupied in trying to
give us impulses, ideas, or fantasies. These influences are pleasant
or disagreeable, useful or dangerous, insignificant or marvellous,
according to our impressionability, our healthy or morbid physical
condition.

By this means telepathy, clairvoyance, all the phenomena of the
subliminal intelligence, even dreams and the hallucinations and mental
aberrations of the insane, may be explained.

This position seems to me as strong as the other. While studying
dreams and the disturbances of the diseased mind, I have often had a
vivid impression that, in some instances, they could only be the result
of evil influences working from the outside, like demons with diabolical
scheming and prevision. It must have struck every observer how
often it appears as if a wicked spirit takes advantage of the weak and
ill-balanced condition of a human mind to assail it with all sorts of
dreadful, grotesque, or weird ideas and fantasies.

To explain all these morbid phenomena as the work of the uncon-
scious or subliminal mind, or of a secondary personality, often seems
forced and insufficient Moreover, considering the matter philo-
sophically, are the terms: "unconscious/1 "subliminal," "secondary per-
sonality/1 clearer and more scientific than the terms demon, spirit, or
ghost ? Is it not often a simple question of terms ? What difference
is there between a secondary or tertiary personality and a possessing
demon 1

The strongest objection to this view, I think, is that we are able to
create secondary or tertiary personalities by means of hypnotic sugges-
tion, and that it is unlikely that we could create demons in that way.
But then, again, do we know what we are doing by hypnotic sugges-
tion 1 Decidedly not, as I am entitled to say after fifteen years of
Practical experience. And is it not possible that we, by our hypnotic
^estion, are working on the mind in exactly the same way, and

XLIV.]

Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

therefore with the same results, as the invisible spirits do ? I, for my
part, feel unable to deny this possibility.

We are obliged in this difficult matter to rely a good deal on our own
personal impressions, to judge by probability, and to form more or less
intuitive conceptions. This may not appear very exact, but it is
unavoidable, and we shall find a similar course pursued in many other
branches of science. Astronomy, for instance, is based principally on
personal impressions, — but impressions which are verified by many
persons, and on intuitive ideas of probability, — but ideas which are
confirmed by repeated observation.

My personal impression has varied in the following manner. During
the first series of experiments, in November and December, 1899, 1 felt a
very strong conviction that the person whose relics I had brought with
me, and who had died fifteen years ago, was living as a spirit and was
in communication with me through Mrs. Thompson. A number of
small particulars, which will be found in the notes, produced on me
when taken en bloc the effect of perfect evidence. To regard these
all as guesses made at random seemed absurd : to explain them by
telepathy forced and insufficient.

But when I came home, I found on further inquiry inexplicable
faults and failures. If I had really spoken to the dead man, he
would never have made these mistakes. And the remarkable feature
of it was that all these mistakes were in those very particulars
which I had not known myself and was unable to correct on the
spot.

Consequently, my opinion changed. There were the facts, quite
as certain and marvellous as before. I could not ascribe them to
fraud or coincidence, but I began to doubt my first impression that
I had really dealt with the spirit of a deceased person ; and I came
to the conclusion that I had dealt only with Mrs. Thompson, who,
possessing an unconscious power of information quite beyond our
understanding, had acted the ghost, though in perfect good faith.

In so doing, she must have been guided by slight involuntary
tokens, positive or negative, on my part. How, otherwise, could she
have given so many true details, sufficient to create an impression of
perfect evidence, and how otherwise would she have made mistakes
exactly on the very points on which I was unable to correct her t

But on my second visit, in June, 1900, when I took with me the
piece of clothing of the young man who had committed suicide,
my first impression came back, and with greater force. I was well
on my guard, and if I gave hints, it was not unconsciously, but on

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[past

purpose ; and, as will be seen from the notes, the plainest hints
were not taken, but the truth came out in the most curious and
unexpected ways.

Take this for instance. Nelly said to me: "You don't seem to
have any whiskers. I don't see your head properly, some one covers
up your head. He [».& the suicide] covers up your head to show
how his own head was covered up. Oh, dear ! isn't it funny f You
must not cut off your head when you die."

The fact is that the head of the young man was covered up when
he was found dead.

Nelly did not take the hint that the first attempt at suicide had
failed. And yet she gave details which unmistakeably, though
indirectly, refer to that failure ; e.g. " when they found him he could
not speak"; and again, "don't take me back to the horror of it";
which two sayings are in exact accordance with the ineffectual attempt,
after which he was found alive and quite conscious, but with an open
windpipe. The second time he shot himself through the heart and
died at once.

The following described very exactly both his character And his
attempt at suicide. " He would not show me any blood on his neck,
because be was afraid I should be frightened."

This is quite like my dead young friend. He was very gentle
and always tried to hide his mutilated throat in order not to horrify
children or sensitive people.

Up to the sitting of June 7th all the information came through
Nelly, Mrs. Thompson's so-called spirit-control. But on that date
the deceased tried, as he had promised, to take the control himself,
as the technical term goes. The evidence then became very striking.
During a few minutes — though a few minutes only — I felt absolutely
as if I were speaking to my friend himself. I spoke Dutch and got
immediate and correct answers. The expression of satisfaction and
gratification in face and gesture, when we seemed to understand
each other, was too true and vivid to be acted. Quite unexpected
Dutch words were pronounced, details were given which were far
from my mind, some of which, as that about my friend's uncle in a
former sitting, I had never known, and found to be true only on
inquiry afterwards.

But being now well on my guard, I could, exactly in this most
interesting few minutes, detect, as it were, where the failures crept
in. I could follow the process and perceive when the genuine
phenomena stopped and the unconscious play-acting began. In hardly

XLIV.]

Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

perceptible gradations the medium takes upon herself the rdle of
the spirit, completes the information, gives the required finish, and
fills in the gaps by emendation and arrangement. ,

E.g. the Dutch names which are to be found at the beginning
of the sitting on June 7th were written by Mrs. Thompson in her
sleep while I was absent. These names are very remarkable, as I
had never heard them ; so my own telepathic influence, at least so far
as my ordinary consciousness is concerned, was excluded. But when
I asked Nelly who was "Notten, Velp," and who was "Zwart," I
got very quick and definite answers, purporting to come from the
young suicide, which answers were afterwards found to be absolutely
wrong. I even found that the name " Zwart " must have been mis-
read, and that what was really written was " I wait." Nevertheless
Nelly made out of my mistake a fictitious friend of the deceased
called " Zwart," who shot himself in the forehead.

That sam e summer I came twice into contact with persons bear-
ing the name " Notten " and living at " Velp," but I failed absolutely
to find out in what relation, if any, they stood to my deceased
friend.

We see here how recklessly and carelessly the control-spirit Nelly
enters into explanations about things of which she evidently under-
stands nothing, though she has referred to them spontaneously her-
self. And we see, moreover, how easily and imperceptibly the rdle
of any spirit is taken up by the medium, after the genuine infor-
mation has ceased.

The principal thing that brings this on is encouragement. As
soon as the control-spirit or the medium is encouraged and helped
in an enthusiastic way, she goes on and on, making her creation
complete, until nothing true or genuine is left This accounts for
the dreadful muddle in which so many honest observers have
ended.

And here, I think, I may make a definite and clear statement of
my present opinion, which has been wavering between the two
sides for a long time. I should not give any definite statement if
I did not feel prepared to do so, however eagerly it might be
desired, for I think it the first duty of a scientist and philosopher
to abstain from definite statements in uncertain matters. And in
observations like these we must reckon with a very general inclina-
tion to deny on second thoughts what seemed absolutely convincing
on the spot and at the moment. Every phenomenon or occurrence
of a very extraordinary character is only believed after repeated

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[paw

observation. After the first experience one's mind refuses to slay
in the unaccustomed channel of thought, and next morning we say:
" I must have been mistaken, I must have overlooked this or that,
there must be some ordinary explanation."

But at this present moment it is about eight months since I had
my last sitting with Mrs. Thompson in Paris, and yet, when I
read the notes again, it is impossible for me to abstain from the
conviction that I have really been a witness, were it only for a few
minutes, of the voluntary manifestation of a deceased person.

At the same time, I feel sure that genuine direct information
is far rarer and scarcer than the medium believes, and in good faith
would have us believe. I hold that a certain amount of uncon-
scious play-acting is nearly always going on at every sitting of every
medium, and that even our most scrupulous and careful observers,
such as Myers and Hodgson, have been misled by it. I doubt not
only the veracity but the actual existence of the so-called control-spirits ;
to me it seems not improbable that they are artificial creations of the
medium's mind, or — according to the spiritist view — lying and pre-
tending demons.

In considering what method to adopt in future investigations this
question is extremely important; since every medium gets a certain
education from his or her leaders or observers, and the effects of this
education are generally unalterable. The education, as a medium, of
Mrs. Thompson has been an immense improvement, compared with
what we have been accustomed to. After all the poor mediums literally
spoiled and bewildered by too credulous and fanatical experimenters,
Mrs. Thompson's quiet self-control and scrupulous neutrality is very
gratifying. And yet I cannot avoid expressing my opinion that her
wonderful faculties as a seer have been spoiled by too much credulity
and encouragement on the part of the principal observers and leaders
of the experiments. . I have seen how soon the so-called control-spirits
begin to fancy and to invent when we simply entertain the idea
of their genuine existence as controlling spirits. In my notes it
will repeatedly be seen that I asked : " How do you know ? " because
I was aware that I only heard the conclusions of the control-spirit,
and not the direct perceptions of the seer. In the later sittings I
strictly abstained from talking to the control-spirit ; I took no notice
of her, but asked for exact information of what was seen or felt by
the medium. This attitude was not sufficiently persevered in by
former observers. Most of them entered more or less into the play
and spoiled the purity of the experiment

xliv.] Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 85

I may sum up my criticisms by saying, that most observers have
been, if not too credulous, then certainly too eager. This eagerness, in
comparison with which patience is often considered phlegmatic, is a
general weakness of the Anglo-Saxon. It accounts for his wonderful
achievements, but also for his mistakes. And this is true also in the
difficult domain of psychical investigation.

In a remarkable article entitled, " How it came into my head," Miss
Goodrich Freer, who is herself a seer, has well pointed out this want of
patience and passivity in psychical researchers, and the advice she
gives we may all take to heart. Nearly all the material that has been
collected up to the present needs revision : a sifting of the gold of
truth from the ore of play-acting and fancy. We can never have a
definite conception of the way in which this supernormal information
reaches us, and we are only too much inclined to form more or less
incomplete, materialistic, and superficial ideas about it. We speak
of the spirit playing on the brain, as a player does on a violin or
piano, and so on. We must also not forget that the statements
made come from regions where our conceptions of time are probably
invalid, which must offer an insuperable bar to our powers of
understanding.

Let me mention one little fact in my experience with Mrs.
Thompson, — a mere trifle in itself, but still very curious. In one of our
first sittings Nelly predicted that I should get at a dinner in Cam-
bridge " a red sauce with fish," which " would not suit me." I asked,
" Why not ? " 1 but got no answer. In Cambridge the red sauce really
turned up, and I took some, braving the prediction, and wondering
if it would make me ill. At the next sitting, I asked why the sauce
was forbidden me in the prediction, and Nelly asked, evidently at a
loss for an answer, " Well, don't you feel thirsty ? " But I did not
feel thirsty at all. Then she said, "Are you a vegetable man?" Now,
I had never told Mrs. Thompson, or shown in her presence, that I was
a vegetarian by custom. But as the sauce was a fish sauce, and was
coloured with cochineal, the remark, made several days before, that it
"would not suit me," was perfectly appropriate; yet the medium
appeared not to understand herself the appropriateness of her own
remark.

This little fact is, if well considered, full of unfathomablo wonders
for our human mind. This trifling remark, — a little joke without any
deep or serious meaning, but showing supernormal knowledge of the

1 Van E.'s question, " Why not ? " is not recorded in the notes, but I have no
doubt it was spoken. [Note by J. G. Piddington.]

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[part

future and of my own way of life, — made, as it were, by proxy and
without insight into its meaning, — how are we ever to grasp all that lies
beneath it t Nothing in ail the experiments gave me so vivid an
impression that the medium is simply an instrument, a tool, temporarily
in the power of beings who live, and can even jest, in regions beyond
space and time.

But let us take care, by all means, not to represent these beings in
definite forms according to our own dramatic fancy. We are sure to
produce what are called in anatomy "artifacts,19 artificial instead of
natural forms.

I have heard the source of this supernormal information denomin-
ated by an English poet as " the collective memory of the race," and
this broad and mystical conception, however vague, seems to me in
some respects the safest working hypothesis for further investigation.

All will readily agree when I maintain that the trance-world of t
medium and the world of dreams are not very far apart In both, the
human mind seems to possess some possibility of contact with a super-
human world, " Anschluss am Absoluten," as the Germans say. In my
notes, I show that my own dreams, during the time of the sittings,
provided me with a name which I had forgotten, and which duly
appeared at the next sitting. And while I was preparing this paper,
nearly a year after the sittings, another dream gave me the solution of
the word " Wocken," which, as shown in the notes, was particularly
insisted upon by the young suicide. It was in my dream associated
with the title of the only book he had written, published after his
death, and for the success of which he was very anxious. (The solu-
tion seems very probable, but I cannot publish it.)

Having observed my own dreams for a long time, making careful
notes of them, and having attained the faculty of executing in my
dreams with full presence of mind voluntary acts which I had
planned while awake, I arranged with the medium that I would
call her in my dreams after returning to Holland, and that in
her trance she would tell an observer in England if she had heard
my calling. All this is recorded in the account of the sittings in
Appendix I. at the end of this paper.

The result (recorded in full in Appendix II.) I may give in a few
words. The whole matter seems to me of great interest, and merits
an elaborate treatment, which, in years to come, if time and ability
allow, I hope to be able to devote to it. But this single interesting
experiment I will relate now, if only to draw attention to the possibility
of the new line of investigation that it opens up.

xliv.] Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 87

In the winter following the first series of sittings, Nelly
announced in the course of various seances, that on three occasions
she herself, and on another occasion another spirit, had come to
visit me in my dreams. In two instances these visits corresponded
closely in time with dream visions of my own, which I had recorded
in my diary previously to the receipt of letters from Mr. Pidding-
ton giving details of Nelly's statements, and in all four instances
there is evidence of telepathic rapport between Nelly and myself. ;

The second instance is the most remarkable. For then, in my
dream, I made what I thought to be a mistake and called out
"Elsie, Elsie," instead of "Nelly." I put down the fact in my
notes the next morning, the name Elsie being absolutely without
any meaning and quite strange to me.

Two days later I got a letter telling me that Nelly's spirit friend,
Elsie, had heard me calling, and that she had been sent by Nelly
to answer me. So my mistake was no mistake; the name Elsie,
though strange to me, had come into my head by some mysterious
influence, and the message across the channel was received.

I have the notes and the letters to show to any one who takes
a serious interest in such matters.

After this, the communication stopped; only Nelly seemed to be
aware of two slight indispositions on my part; but the dream ex-
periments wholly failed.

I will conclude this brief account by saying that I see before us a
limitless domain of strange knowledge and the possibility of most
important investigation, but that we need in this, more than in
any other branch of science, patience and prudence. Nowhere are
we in such great danger of complete error and entanglement. We
can form hypotheses, eschatologies, whole religious systems, accord-
ing to our fancy, and the docile medium will show us all our
chimeric constructions in full action and bewildering semblance of
reality.

To avoid such pitfalls we must check all undue eagerness and
impatience in this most delicate and subtle of scientific quests,
which concerns the human soul and the superhuman world where-
with it is conjoined. Passive in observation, patient in action,
prudent in advance, we must refrain from seeking to unveil with
over-hasty hands the secrets yet hidden from us by the Eternal

GocL

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[past

APPENDIX I.

DETAILED REPORT OF SITTINGS.

Note by J. G. Piddinoton.

[Throughout the record, R = right, W. = wrong, and D.= doubtful.

The notes of the first series of sittings are as nearly verbatim as the
rapidity of Nelly's utterance permitted. Special care was taken to note
down remarks made or questions asked by the sitter or note-taker.

The notes of the second series of sittings are not so full, but Dr. no
Eeden is responsible for the greater part of them, and confidence may
therefore be felt that nothing of essential importance has been omitted.

The omissions, which are indicated thus . . . , with one or two very alight
and totally unimportant exceptions, have reference to matters unconnected
with Dr. van Eeden.

All explanatory notes and comments, in so far as they refer to his own
affairs, friends, relatives, etc, have been either written or dictated by Dr.
van Eeden, or submitted for his approval, although, for the sake of clearness,
they have usually been changed from the first to the third person. They are
printed in square brackets, the sentences in round brackets relating to what
was said or done at the sittings.

It will be observed that most of the statements made by the medium in
these sittings purport to come from 44 Nelly," a child of Mrs. Thompson's,
who died as a baby. The medium is therefore generally referred to as
44 mother" by the control.]

At 65 Rutland Gate, S.W., 430 p.m. Present: Mrs. Thompson, Mr. and
Mrs. Crackanthorpe, Dr. F. van Eeden, and J. G. Piddington (note-
taker).

[Dr. van Eeden arrived in England the night before the first sitting. He
was accompanied to 65 Rutland Gate by J. G. Piddington. His name was
not given to the servant to announce, but was known to Mr. and Mrs.
Crackanthorpe.]

Ndly. 44 What does Mr. Savant want ? "

(Van E. hands small end of cedar pencil to Mrs. T.)

Nelly. 44 Pencil gives impression of preaching to a lot of young men. . .

(J. G. P. gives an envelope, handed to him by van E., to Mrs. T.)

Nelly. " I get a feeling about a lady with this. Feels like a piece of dark
hair— not white hair [R] — belongs to somebody who didn't like travel [BJ
— travelling made her ill [R] gave her backache [R] (Sotto voce to J. G. P.)
That gentleman (t.e., van E.) doesn't understand what I'm saying.

Sitting I. — November 29th, 1899.

xliv.] Account of Sittvngs with Mrs. Thompson.

"Strong influence of lot of stairs, some one lives very high tip — tall
building."

[Van E.'s first meeting with the lady was in a large high building with
many stairs. See p. 103.]

" The lady connected with the envelope had something taken out of her
neck, a little tiny something, when she was young [W.J . . .

"There was a Michel (pronounced 'Meeshel') associated with the lady
who is connected with the envelope.

" Belonging to the lady of the hair (i.e., hair in envelope) was a soldier.
He died of fever, not in war."

[The lady had a brother, a soldier, who, when not on active service, died at
the age of 39 from a fall from his horse.]

" He was a blue [R], not a red, coat soldier — not a Prussian. There was
a Leon connected with the blue soldier [D.] and a Louise [R.].

"There was a name like Clockild— Clotilda [D.]. Don't like all these
funny names — they are not familiar to me.

" It was always such a pain down left side, wanting to lie down all the
time [R.]. /

" Do you know Astratoff ? but the gentleman there (van £.) knows him
very well — not very well, associates with him. He is a Swede." (Here
followed what seemed to be expressions of disapproval of Astratoff.)

[If this refers to Mr. Aksakoff, he is a Russian, not a Swede, and van £.
has had only a slight correspondence with him.]

(To van E.). "Bring something next time belonging to the young roan
who died prematurely at 22."

[Van E. has been unable to identify the young man of 22.]
"Fondalin — Fohnmer — Fomineer." [Various attempts to pronounce a
proper name, with the Dutch pronunciation. Fondalin seems like an
attempt at " Van Eeden."]

" Everybody has a Frederick connected with him, but so has that gentle-
man (van E.) too. He was fond of experimenting with medicine bottles,
like Sir W. Crookes, you know. I mean the young man who died at 22.

"Ordinary doctor was father or brother or very near relative of this
young man."

[Frederik is van E.'s Christian name, and also his father's. The father
never made chemical experiments, but the son has, a good many years ago.
All this seemed to van E. an attempt to define his personality.]

"... This gentleman (van E.) thinks he is going back on a certain day,
but there will be some commotion which will make him change the date of
departure — either one day earlier or later."

[The day of van E.'s departure was not fixed at time of sitting, but he
left England several days later than he had intended originally.] . . .

"There is a Marie belonging to that gentleman (£e., van E.) (Mrs. T.
takes van E.'s hands.) I do like you, but I can't creep round you a bit. . . ."

[Van E. knows a Marie, but the name is not borne by any near relative
or intimate friend.]

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[past

"That gentleman (van E.) has been to a materialising seance."
Van E. "When?"

Nelly. "A short time ago. There is a strong influence of somebody
cheating all the time — taking off clothes and so on — fraudulent throughout*

[Van £. sat with Miss Fay about twelve years ago. She was fraudulent
at times probably ; but van £. thinks she did not cheat with him.]

Nelly (to van E.). " I promise faithfully to give you plenty of details 00
Friday."

(To J. G. P.) " Don't let your mother — or lady at your house — be present
at sitting— it would make mother nervous."
(Van E. asks Nelly if she can appear to people in dreams.)
" I never tried except with mother.

" I'm going to materialise one day for father to show him the colour of
my hair — black curly hair, not light like mother's."
[But cf. the following from a sitting on January 18th, 1900 :
"You want my description ? (J. G. P. had not asked for a description,
though he had thought of doing so.) I haven't red hair. It's aa light as
mother's — not red — more look of brightness, like mother's." J. G. P. several
months later pointed out to Nelly the inconsistency of these two descrip-
tions, and Nelly explained that the description given on January 18th, 1900,
should apply to " Elsie." For " Elsie " see below.1]

At 87 Sloane Street, S.^, 10.30 a.m. Present : Mrs. Thompson, Dr. F. van
Eeden, and J. G. Piddington (note-taker).

(Nelly asks for a piece of hair, but van E. gives her a pair of old gloves.)
Nelly. " What was ' Vam ' 1 Not a dead influence with this [W.J.
" Do you know what ' Sellin ' is ? Very awkward to pronounce — 4 So win.'
* Sayyin.'

" An old gentleman with these gloves [R.].
" Black, dark hair [R.].

" Some one tried to come, an old gentleman. He writes a great deal [R J
used to have a great cold in (right) arm [D.].

" You noticed how mother opened her eyes ; the gentleman used to sit
back in an arm-chair — not a warm stuffed one like the one mother is sitting
in, but a cold leather-covered chair, — asleep. He used to open his eyes, as

1 On Nov. 21, 1901, after reading the proofs of this record, Afro. Thompson, in reply
to my enquiries, told me that the personal description ascribed by Nelly to Elsie is not
in accordance with the facts ; for Elsie, whom Mrs. Thompson knew well, and saw sa
late as four days before her death, had colourless lightish brown hair cut short and
straight across her forehead. Elsie died at about six years of age. Nelly, who died
when only four months old, had very dark brown curly hair, most unlike her mother's.—
Note by J. G. P.

End of seance, 5.35 p.m.

Sitting II.— Friday, December 1st, 1899.

xliv.] Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 91

if awake, suddenly, and shut them again ; but he was really asleep all the
time [D.].

" There was an old lady belonging to the old gentleman. She wore a
funny cap—her hair was very thin " [R].

[An ordinary Dutch cap might appear " funny n to an English person.]

" The old gentleman wore white stockings [R] or light drab.

" As he sat in arm-chair with his legs stretched out, his toes looked big
and bulgy ; the boots were cut open all round."

[He may have worn very worn-out slippers.]

" He seemed dead after he sat in chair. He seemed to be taken ill in his
chair before taking to his bed [R.]. There was a striped cover on back of
chair [D.].

" He wore a hat like Tennyson [RJ.

" What was Angelina ? It sounds like that in English. She has to do
with this gentleman (1.0., van E.) [W.].

" It is a 'clog* country where the old gentleman lives [R]. The old gentle-
man went to stay there — he had relations there. The noise of clogs could be
heard on the pavement. He had greasy hair like yours (to van E.)— only
darker [R]. He was large of frame [R] — tall — not stout [R.] — looked very
shrunk in face."

[" Rather shrunk " would be correct]

"Had a fur collar when he went to clog country. He went to a
great many different countries [RJ, I'm not sure whether he is alive
or dead.

"The glove gives an influence of a live person ; but the incidents related
seem to refer to a dead person.

"There was like a German lady at your house, who knew all about this
old gentleman. I think he was her father. * Netherlands ' associated with
this old gentleman [R]. The lady is not exactly of the same nationality
as the old gentleman, she seems nearer to a German."

[Mrs. van Eeden is the daughter of the old gentleman. He had a German
daughter-in-law.]

"The old gentleman belongs to a country where there is a Queen [R]
not a Republic. The lady seems to have belonged to a Republic [W.].

"Some ooe belonging to the old gentleman was drowned in a pleasure
accident a long time ago. It was a young man. He is all excited now when
I asked him to recite an account of it.

"The old gentleman never forgot it, although the accident occurred
when he was a young man."

[Van E. has not been able to get any confirmation of this.]

" I think the accident occurred when larking, not a serious accident"

Van E. " Was the old gentleman present at the accident ? "

Nelly. "The old gentleman wrings his hands: it carries him back to
sad times. The old gentleman has an old lady belonging to him who
breathed with great difficulty — not asthma, but very difficult breath-

ing" [R].

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[part

" When the old gentleman went out he likes to have a boy — a young man
— with him, grandson or child of friend, about 15 or 16 years old. A
friend, not a servant."

[This may have been his youngest son.]

"He used to wear a wedding ring: no stones in it — a tight ring — it
was quite tight [R It is the Dutch custom for men to wear wedding
rings ; van E. himself was wearing a similar ring, which fitted very
tightly.]

" He used to wear a scarf put round — a Wellington scarf — a stock."
Van E. " What colour ? w

Nelly. " Black [RJ. Very narrow collar indeed — the necktie didn't allow
much collar to show."

(To van E.). "The old gentleman is delighted to give you this in-
formation."

(Van E. hands a small box to Mrs. T. The box contained hair. The box
had been in a lady's possession several years. The hair belonged to her
dead husband. This may explain the subsequent confusion.)

" Sister's influence more than anything."

(Van E. says there is something inside box.)

"May I take it out?" ("Yea") "That's very dead— that's after it was
dead [R],

"This seems to have been cut after lady was dead." [It was cut from the
head of the husband after death.]

" It was a Holland — Dutch lady. She had always to go away for her
health [R] because she was always hot and cold all over — had to wipe her

[The latter part of the sentence would be true of the husband, but not of
the wife. The pantomime which the medium made when speaking of wiping
the head reminded van E. strongly of the death scene of the man to whom
the hair belonged.]

" This lady used to wear a cross. You have the cross at your (ue. van E.'s)
house belonging to this lady. When she was ill she went away to get better,
but came home worse."

[On subsequent enquiry van E. found that the lady still possesses the
cross at her house, and that the statement about the lady's health was
true. Neither of these facts were known to van E. at the time of the
sitting.]

" She had one or two unsuccessful trips for her health. This is what Mrs.
Cartwright 1 says [R].

" There was an Anna belonging to this lady [D.].

"Great suddenness of influence about this lady's death — peculiarly sad
circumstances connected with her death [R of husband.] . . . n

(In accordance with Nelly's instructions, Mrs. T. is awakened, in order
that Nelly may go and get further information.)

i "Mrs. Cartwright" is the mime of a former teacher of Mrs. Thompson's, who occt-
purports to "control."

head."

xiav.] Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 93

Van E. (to Nelly) : " You made one mistake — enquire about it."
(Trance breaks 11.40 a.m. and is resumed at 12.15 p.m.)
Nelly. " What was that dead baby associated with hair lady ? It was
not properly born."

VanE. u I don't know."

[Van E. could not on enquiry find out anything about the baby.]
(To van E.) : " You didn't want me to tell you that the lady went away
for her health. I don't know if that was the mistake."
[See above.]

" A married lady belonging to this hair — not young lady [R.]. It was not
a developed baby, but it is alive now. Was Yanden ? Can't say it. Van-
denen ? Begins like ' Yan ' in the street. Then ' enden.'

" Begins with E — f endenen ' — not like ' Hendon,' but * endenen.'

"Sophie that was [?]

" Do you know that name like Makosky (?) [No meaning.]

" They [sic] don't speak English like this gentleman (ie. van E.), but they
talk like very foreignly. They do speak English, but not fluently." [This
would be true of the relations connected with both pieces of hair.]

" Hair lady connected intimately with 1 Meddi Makoeti ' 1 and a Louise.

" Louise was a relation of hair lady [R.].

"Hair lady used to make very beautiful lace for her amusement— worked
it with her fingers [W.].

" She used to look after an old gentleman — like her father — looked after
house and superintended for an old gentleman with a drab-coloured dog
[D.]. But this was not the old gentleman with the gloves [R.].

(To van E.). "I wish you would think about the dead baby. The hair
lady has the entire management of the dead baby [?].

"I can't make it clearer. I've muddled it all out as distinctly as
I can.

"It seems as if the lady's name was Utrecht — like Utrecht velvet"
[Husband and wife both lived, and husband died at Utrecht. See seance of
December 4th, 1899.]

1 On November 21st, 1901, Mrs. Thompson, after reading the proofs of this record,
spontaneously informed me that she had noticed an unexplained reference to " Meddi
Makoski." She then explained that her daughter, Rosie, both for some long time
before, and probably also at the date of van E.'b sittings, had been at school with a girl
of the name of "Meddi Makoski." Mrs. Thompson had only heard the name pro-
nounced, and is uncertain of the correct spelling. Her daughter had on several occasions
spoken about the girl at home, and her nationality had been discussed. When giving
me this information, Mrs. Thompson remarked : " You see how things immm conscious
memory come into the trance communications." On November ^irs.
Thompson's daughter, Rosie, wrote to me as follows : *' Mother ask \he
date the three Miecsmikowska girls left school. They left Mids ee
girls were not my friends, but I remember quite well (so does fat! m!
their nationality, the mother being Portuguese and the father Poli >n
the name written until to-day ; when the g* * ~~ ' -hool we i m
as the 4 Medgemakoskis., "—Note by J. G.

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[paw

(Van E. hands to Mrs. T. the same hair in envelope that he had previous^
given her at seance on November 29, 1899).
Van E. "Is it alive or dead?"

Nelly. "Dead lady. It belonged to an older piece than the other; it
belonged to an older person. [W.]

(To van E.) 44 Why didn't you bring your boy with you t You ought to
have brought him. It would have been an education for him."

[Van E. recognised this as an appropriate remark.]

(To van E.) " You are going to see my mother in Paris next year. Yoa will
be wearing a lighter-coloured felt hat at Paris than you are wearing now. Bat
if you remember this prophecy you must not go and buy one on purpose.*

[Van E. did meet Mrs.T. in Paris in 1900 but Mrs. T. in her normal
state would have known this to be not improbable. He did not wear t
lighter-coloured hat].

" You were talking two years ago in Brussels at au association."

J. Q. P. 44 What was it about " ?

NeUy. "Stuff that no one can understand, — philosophy, like Professor
Sidgwick. I don't know any more."
J. G. P. 44 In what part of Brussels ? "

Nelly. a It was a Congress. You know the 4 North Pole 4 Pole du Nord '
— where people sing and dance. Turning out of the street in which was the
North Pole was the big hall where the Congress was held.

44 I saw Dr. Bramwell in the street there. That gentleman1 {i.e. van E.)
and Dr. Bramwell were at Congress together."

[Van E. has never given a lecture at Brussels. He attended a lecture
given at the University Nouvelle about two years ago, but did not meet
Dr. Bramwell there. Mrs. Thompson has been in Brussels.]

u Does Marie Louise belong to this ? (i.e. to hair in envelope).

" Do you know Linden ? I associate the hair with * Unter den Linden
not with the place, but with the name 4 Linden.1 "

[This is the family name of intimate friends of the husband ; and this
fact, unknown to van E. at the time of the sitting, was discovered by him
on subsequent inquiry.]

44 The old gentleman when he wanted anything couldn't get up to ring the
bell, but had a stick by his side with which to knock on the floor. The old
gentleman told me that. I get clear messages from the old gentleman. He
says some one — a lady — came to him and brought him some funny cakes —
baked — to eat. It's like Martha— the name of the lady— Martha S."

[Mrs. van Eeden, whose name is Martha, attended on the old gentleman,
her father, in his last illness. Yan E. states that the stick in bed with the
dying man and the cakes are very characteristic At the sitting van E.
could not say if the statement about the cakes was correct or not, but
verified it on his return home.]

1 Note by J. O. P. "My original notes run 'ran E. and Dr. Bramwell were at
Congress together/ but I feel sure Nelly did not mention Dr. van Eeden by name. I
probably wrote ' van E.' as a short equivalent to 4 that gentleman.1 "

xliv.] Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 95

* I see capital S by you (i.e. van E.) all the time. The name is like — a
short name — about five letters. Schlips — Schloes — not Schloss.

" He wasn't so patient as you are (to van E.). He is most impatient He
would do like that (very characteristic pantomime of impatient gestures with
hands).

"It is like Schweitz — not Schweppes — an SH feeling about it —
Schwort

"The old gentleman is very 'fumy' [R.]. He poisoned his dog — because
the dog couldn't get better — a long time before his own death [D.\ He
always wanted to rule [R.].

" Do you know van Eeden ? — (pronounced 'Eden'). Somebody said that,
— somebody slipped in and said that, I think. Freidhof — Fitz, — begins like
Frederick and then goes off peculiar. Amsterdam, Freidham, Freidher.
Amsterdam came like a picture right across. Freidham was a man belonging
to this gentleman (1.0. van E.), but younger than he is."

[Van E. was living at Amsterdam when the old gentleman died. "Fray "
represents the English pronunciation of the name by which the old gentle-
man called van E.]

" Your real name is Von Savant— only they don't call you that." [Nelly
referred to van E. as "Mr. Savant" at beginning of seance on November
29th, 1899.]

(To van E.). " Will you be sure to ask me about the name beginning with
S next time?" . . .

(To van E.). " Don't have any of that red sauce with fish at Cambridge.
It wouldn't suit you." [See second seance of December 4, 1899, p. 100.]

" Why that's— Talks like a Dutchman."

(J. 6. P. asks Mrs. Thompson on awaking what she heard last as she came
out of trance, and she replied) :

" She's talking double Dutch— or something like that"
(Sitting ends 1.15 p.m.)

Sitting III. — December 4th, 1899.

At 5 Selwyn Gardens, Cambridge ; Sitting begins 5 p.m. Present : Mrs.
Thompson, Dr. F. van Eeden, and Mrs. Verrall.

[Notes taken by Mrs. Verrall.]

Nelly. " Don't mesmerise mother."
Van E. "No."

Nelly. " I see you doing it to people."
Van E. "No, I won't do it"

Nelly. " I can see in your past life that you h ^ou are -

foreigner, what are you called ' Frederick ' for ' " Frer*

was pronounced oddly : an attempt at the Dut< ] "

you pronounce it?"

Van E. "FrSderik."

Digitized by Google

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[paw

Nelly. " Yes. I telled you that before. Somebody's got something the
matter with the eyes. You hypnotise."

[When van E. treats patients he always begins with touching their eyes
so as to close them.]

Van E. "What person?"

Nelly. "I don't know what."

Van E. " Was it long ago ? "

Nelly. " Not while you were in Loudon."

Van E. " Where was it ?"

Nelly. " Like in . I know your name is Mr. Bosom, Bostim.

Come here, Mrs. Verrall, let me tell it to you. (To van E.). You are Mr.
Gardener Eden " (or "garden of Eden").

[" Gardener Eden " — not a bad joke on Nelly's part : as van E. farms st
Bussum].

Nelly. " Mr. van Eeden — It is Bua-som."

Van E. " I will put you on the right track. The place where I live is
Bussum. Have you a message from the old gentleman ? (Gives the gloves.)
There was a word with an S in it"

Nelly. " If it does not come now, you won't be cross ? "

Van E. "No."

Nelly. "Mr. Myers has got a c in his name. This gentleman (»'.«. van E.)
has a k. [i.e. Frederic Myers and FrederU van Eeden.] You have that silly
name of Bussom because you are a foreigner. It's a name of Holland."

Van E. "Can you tell me about the old gentleman? Put your hand
inside the glove."

Nelly. " He's got somebody belonging to him who is a doctor."

Van E. "How do you know?"

Nelly. " He says : ' My son is a doctor' — not in that sort of talking."
[The old gentleman was van E.'s father-in-law, but had also a son—
who is a doctor in Oriental Languages.]
VanE. "Is it a son?"

Nelly. " No, it's like a brother. They are all medical ; there's a lot of
medical men belonging, not all medical, but doctors."

Van E. " Can you distinguish his voice ? He wanted to say a word with

Nelly. " The lady belonging to the hair is alive " [R.].

Van E. " You made a mistake about the hair, you mistook the man's hair
for the lady's. The hair was in possession of a lady."

Nelly. " You have a dead brother who is a genius [W.]. Do you know
what Ront . . . It's a gentleman, not the one of the gloves, that you are
friendly with. He's just had some one died, belonging to him — van
Ron. ..." (an attempt followed to pronounce von Renterghem). [It should
be noted here that the name von Renterghem occurs next to van Eeden's in
the list of members of the S.P.R., and that van E.'s address, Bussum, appears
in the same list. — J. G. P.] "He writed with you about mesmerism — a
review — a foreign name."

au S."

XLIV.]

Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

[Van Renterghem and van £. practised and wrote about hypnotism in
collaboration.1]

(To Mrs, Verrall). " This gentleman {i.e. van £.) and another are fond of
hypnotism."

YanE. "Oh, I see."

[Van. £. made this exclamation as it suddenly struck him what the name
was which Nelly was endeavouring to pronounce.]

Nelly. "He was fond of joining you in partnership when you talk
mesmerism. He had a lady belonging to him who died."

Van E. " Recently V

Nelly. " Yes. Ask him will he give something belonging to that lady next
time. I'll tell you all about it"

(This reference to a " lady that died " has no relevance, so far as van E.
can ascertain.]

Van K " Can you tell me about the old gentleman and the word V*
Nelly. * Shuber, like Schubert, not Shuber— Sh—Sh— Sh— w
VanE. "Can you tell me the name of the old gentleman or of his
favourite place?"

Nelly. "When he was alive, you hadn't got a queen. There was
some one else. There was a great commotion, he remembers all about
it. Through a king or a queen there was a commotion in the town.
He had a Charles [W.] and a Frederick belonging to him— and like an
Eden."

[The old gentleman died in 1883. In 1879 the second marriage of
William III., King of the Netherlands, was celebrated.]

" When he slept in bed he had a night-cap on — everybody does not wear
night-caps."

[It was not a night-cap, but usually a silk wrapper.]
"He has somebody belonging to him ill now, not very ill, has to lie
down and be careful."

Van E. " How do you know ?"

Nelly. " I see a picture of a lady lying down, she ought to be in bed. She's
not well at all."
[R. for surviving wife of the old gentleman.]

"The old gentleman had a long pipe — with a long stem : he's not smoking
it — in his hand— it's on a rack on the wall by the fire-place."
Van E. " Does he never smoke it ? 1

Nelly. " It's at the back of the chair where he used to sit [He never used
to smoke.] There's lots of books in that room, lots and lots of books [EL].

1 On November 21ft, 1901, Mrs. Thompson, after reading the proofs of this record,
spontaneously told me that she bad been given a copy of Proceeding* S.P.R., voL XI.
(1895), by Mr. Myers, who wished her to read his paper on Ruolute Credulity. On
looking into the volume on November 21st, 1901, she noticed that it contained a review
by Dr. C. L. Tuckey of a work on hypnotism, written in collaboration by Dr. F. van
Beden and Dr. W. A. van Renterghem ; bat that, so far as she was aware, this was the
first time that she was conscious of having seen it.— Note by J. O. P.

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[past

He could think stronger than he could talk. You (van £,) can talk— be
could think stronger."

[It was a matter of concern to the old gentleman that he could not talk
so well as he could think.]

Van E. " Does he say that himself 1 "

Netty. " Tea He's got a very magnetic sort of hand, it would soothe your
head if it were put on it"

Van E. "The old gentleman's or mine ?"

Nelly. " Hie old gentleman's. He did not exercise it. Have you got the
old gentleman's black silk tie ? It has been with this " (t.«. gloves).

Van E. " No. But I can ask. Ask for the word with an S. Is it the
name of a spirit ? "

Nelly. " Yes. When he says it he shortens it. Shuber — Shulof — Sh—
Sh—

" The old gentleman's head was muddled before he died. Shofto. When
he says it distinctly I'll tell you. What is Bossom ? "
Van E " Thaf s where I live."

Nelly. "He wants you to send his love to them — to those people at
Bossom."

Van E. " Can you tell me the name of his favourite place ? "

Nelly. "Am-f elt — hamfelt — handfelt — belonging to you." (The name ought
to have been Haarlem.] " When the old gentleman went out in the garden
there were white things sticking up on the right-hand side, like stone things
[not recognised]. He keeps imitating a violin, he wants to be where they
played the violin. There's a very large church-like building, where glass
windows are. He likes to hear the music at the church place. I am trying
to find the name." [Perhaps the church at Haarlem, where concerts are
often held.]

Van E. "It's nearly right"

Nelly. " It's like Shovelt It's difficult. They have to say the word and
tell Mrs. Cartwright, and she tells me."

Mrs. V. " You were very clever with my names, Nelly, you saw pictures
of them ; but it's easier in English."

Nelly. " He [Le. the old gentleman] could speak Euglish, but not like you
(i.e. van E.) [R.]. I won't talk about Schuman any more. I'll talk about
something else. . . ."

" Who's the William belonging to the old gentleman ? " [His eldest son.]

" He's alive, not very well, going about as if right ; may have a break-
down, is overdoing it You must not let him. His energy is more than
his vitality, — too strong for his strength. When he starts a thing he does
not listen to reason. He should be more rational." [All this is very probable.]

"The old gentleman is concerned."

VanE. "Why?"

Ndly. "He is concerned about William. He ought to take recreation
between. William's got thin hair, he has to comb it over." [Quite wrong
about hair.]

xliv.] Account of Sittings wWi Mrs. Thompson. 99

VanE. "la it William?"

Nelly. " It's like Willeni, Willeme " (pronounced Willemer).

[Very much like the Dutch pronunciation.]
VanE. "Yes, that's it"

Nelly . " He's got thin hair [W.]. Ill come to your country. I'll come
and talk with you. You've got somebody you can make talk when put to
sleep. If you say, ' Now, Nelly,' I'll come if I can."

Van E. " Will you come in my dreams ? "

Nelly. "But you've got curtains round your bed. I don't like them.
They are old-fashioned now."

[Bed curtains are becoming rare in Holland. Van E.'s sleeping-room being
at the same time his study, he has a drapery hanging before his bed.]

[See below for the dream visions of Nelly experienced by van E. on nights
of Jan. 2-3 and 14-15, 1900.]

Van E. " If you saw better you would see why I have curtains."

Nelly. " Because it's got a thing to hide it Because you don't want all the
people to see. You are funny."

Van E " What's the matter ? "

Nelly. " I don't know."

Van. E. '* I put the curtain up at night"

Nelly. " I don't know if I am in the right house. It's got a shiny floor.
There's a cupboard with little drawers." [There is a cupboard with little
drawers in van E.'s house and a floor with mattings.] " You'll faithfully
promise not to put mother to sleep. There is some person at your house,
whom you might put asleep as a medium ; she is very poorly."

Van E. " I can't understand whom you mean."

Nelly. " She has a pain at the top of her spine."

[There is somebody answering to that description living with van E.,
but he never hypnotises her and probably never will.] . . .

Nelly (to Mrs. Verrall). "Perhaps I'll talk secrets when you go away.
I shan't call you doctor (to van E.), though the old gentleman does. I can't
oblige you and call you doctor. You have not enough bottles, you don't
smell enough of disinfectants."

[Van E. does not practise medicine much now.]

"What was Paul ? He belonged to the old gentleman — a person not
very near. The old gentleman knows all about Paul."

[Paul is the name of van E.'s youngest son, born after the old gentleman's
death. Note the use of the present tense, " knows."]

" It is not your fault, nor Mrs. Verrall's, but the people all come and talk .
at once. The old gentleman has a telling voice [R], not loud, but you could
hear it in a large room to the furthest corner ; it reached out."

Van E. " Can you ask about the hair ? "

Nelly. " The lady had it in a box with thiugs that belonged to another
dead person [D.]. Your real name is foreign savant I'll forgive you for
saying Spain to mother."

[On walking away from the house with Mrs. Thompson after his first

Digitized by Google

*'< _V>C)

100

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[part

sitting, when his nationality had not yet been discovered, van E. had talked
to her about Spain, not without some intention of seeing if Nelly would
follow up a wrong hint.]

Van E. " So you have heard that ? "

Nelly. " Yea and another thing that Mr. Piddington said, that mother did
not struggle, nor pull faces, when she goes in a trance."

[After the second sitting, when Mrs. Thompson had left the room, and
perhaps the house, van £. and J. G. P. had talked about the quiet and easy
form of Mrs. T.'s trances.]

At 5 Selwyn Gardens, Cambridge ; 8.30 p.m. Present : Mrs. Thompsoa,
Dr. F. van Eeden, and Mrs. Verrall.

Van E. " Why did you tell me not to eat the red sauce ? "
Nelly, " I told you you would have it here."
Van E. " Yes, but was it dangerous for me?"

Nelly. " Oh, no. Mrs. Verrall, do you often have it ? It is funny you had
red sauce with white fish. At mother's house you would have had white
sauce."

Van E. "But why was I not to take it ?"
Nelly. " Well, don't you feel thirsty ? "
VanE. "Not at all."
Nelly. " Are you a vegetable man 1 "

Van E. " A vegetarian, yes ; but I sometimes eat fish, not to be rude to
people."

[See end of Sitting II., December lstj 1899. Van E. writes : "At dinner,
remarking the red sauce, I asked if Mrs. Verrall had it often. Nelly was
evidently very much amused at this incident. She could give no explana-
tion why she had forbidden me to partake of the sauce. But her question
if I was a vegetarian is very curious, the sauce being coloured with
cochineal.

" If this is the true explanation, we must admit that some other intelligence
was aware of the two facts : that I am a vegetarian, and that I should have
at Cambridge sauce coloured red with cochineal, which would thus ' not
suit me.* Nelly was evidently unaware of the connection."

Note by Mrs. Verrall. — "The sauce was anchovy, but coloured with
cochineal, as we always have it. I had given no orders about the sauce,
having only said there would be boiled fish. When I selected the John
Dory I hesitated whether I would have a Dutch sauce, but decided to leave
the question of sauce to the cook."]

Nelly. " Have you got Scholmas now ? It's like Schoolbred ; it begins like
that Do you belong to Mr. Kruger ?"

Van E. " No, he's no relation of mine."

Nelly. " Well, you say Dutch."

Sitting IV. — December 4th, 1899.

xliv.] Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 101

Van E. " Kruger is Afrikander, uot Dutch."

[This may refer to van E.'s political sympathies, but perhaps the conversa-
tion at dinner had turned on the war.]

Nelly. " Have you got your brother's hair ? "
VanE. "No."

Nelly. " I wish you would bring it."

(V an E. gives the same box as at second sitting.)
Nelly. " Not that hair— not Utrecht-hair."

Van E. " Why not ? (To Mrs. V., who was not sure of having caught the
name rightly) the name is right."

[Van E. was struck with the expression " Utrecht-hair," because it proved
that the name Utrecht was not said at random at the seance on December
1st, 1899.]

Nelly. " It belongs to a dead person, who had a lot of pain before they
died. It makes mother feel ill. Had he got cancer on the liver ? horrible
pain." . . .

[" The voice and gestures of Mrs. T. produced a strong impression on me
of very great internal pain." — Note by Mrs. Verrall.]

Mrs. V. " Perhaps you might leave a message with me about it some other
time."

Nelly. " Mr. Hypnotism (t.e., van E.), the old gentleman is not the pain
person."

[It was the old gentleman though, who died from cancer of the liver. The
Utrecht person died from pneumonia.]

" The person of the hair is nearer to your heart [R.]. Besides you there
is a Frederik belonging to the person of the hair [W.]. What was Anna,
not quite that, Amma ? When this was — there are studs belonging to the
man, because he was a male person, but he was not old, not with whiskers,
he was young."

[He was about forty.]

" He had studs with something in the middle, not plain gold [D.]. Mrs.
Verrall, there's a Theodore belonging to you,1 there's a Theodore belonging to
this gentleman [D.]. Don't mix them. There seems a Karl, a great friend
of this gentleman. This one could sing, you cannot (to van E.) ; he could play
a music that you blew, not a big thing (imitating a horn), just blow/'

[He was very musical, and always wanted to play a trumpet, which he did
not, because his wife did not approve.]

"He's got something the matter with his inside, he's ever so uncomfort-
able, he could hardly breathe.

" This is a description. I can ask him. He has a brother alive now
[W.] and a dog [W.] The dog and the brother are in the same house.

"There's a flat piano where this man lived [D.] — not a stand-up one like
that (pointing to piano). He used to drink quantities of milk [It.]. Hi
used to have ... he was rather an experimenter [R.], fond

1 See Mrs. Verrall's paper, "Notes on the Tranoe Phenomena of Mrs, Tliomi
•on," p. 176.

Digitized by

ke :

f Mrs. Thorn]

102

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[part

make something oat of nothing, not mechanical ; he was clever in the head
for thinking, for inventions" [R].
Van E. " Does he speak to you ? "

Nelly. " Yes, but yet I can't say he does ; he speaks to some one who telU
me. It's a difficult personality. He was not free, he resented outsider*
trying to know his affairs [R], He only told a choice few ; he was Terr
reticent ; that's the word " [R].

Van E. " Quite different from the old gentleman f "

Nelly. " Yes, more reserved [R]. Wrapped up like a cigar you have to
unroll, unroll him and find what he is, find the tobacco. That's an illustra-
tion. People misjudge him, thought he was too much wrapped up \K\
He was a bright spirit ; would not do any one any harm [RJ. He went to
Italy [R]. I think with you, with a Frederick. I think you can find
that out"

Van E. " He went to Italy, but not with a Frederick."

Nelly. " He has an uncle now alive [W.J, who's a military man. I'm new
sure about relations."

[Many relations of deceased were military men. His uncle, who was as
officer, is dead.]

Van E. " Let us say a relation."

Nelly. " You should not have let him die; he was just beginning to be
at the very best of his life. People a lot older belonging to him could have
better died. He was not what you call pious or religious [R]. He had a
high sense of goodness in nature, a religious feeling [RJ. He was a
strange character, a powerful character [R] in a weak frame [W.].

"He always wore button boots [W.]. Sometimes had gaiter pieces,
spats . . . perhaps that's the buttons. I can see like gaiters, leggings.
Not all alike on his feet

" He used to wear a hat like yours, a brown hat " [D.].

Van E. " Has he a message ? "

Nelly. " He wants you to collect those papers and finish it"
Mrs. V. (to van E.). " Do you understand ?"
Van E. "Yes."

[Perhaps this is about an unfinished literary work, in which he might
have been interested.]

(Here Mrs. T. seemed to want her handkerchief. Mrs. Yerrall found it
and gave it to her. She put it to her face.)

Nelly. " The gentleman coughs. He makes me cough. Don't take him to
the hospital. I don't like this foreign country. I don't like this foreign
country — O dear ! O dear ! — get me out of this hospital. Mrs. Verrail — Ifs
not hurting my mother. The gentleman tried to talk — I saw them taking
some one to the hospital and thought it was me. I didn't want to go."

["All through this part of the sitting the impression of misery and
distress made on me was exceedingly vivid. It was as if a scene was being
vividly described of some one in a foreign country taken against his will to
a hospital." — Note by Mrs. Verrail.

xliv.] Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 103

Van E. has not been able to ascertain what incident in the deceased's life
was described here. Some time before his death one of the employes at his
office, a German, was taken ill, and he had advised him to go to the hospital,
where he (the German) died.]

" You'll finish the papers and put them together and write a little bit at
the end and print them. Never mind the money, that'll come all right."
VanE. "Thank you."

Nelly. "Give me the pocket-book."

Van E. " Is this it ? " (giving a red and a brown pocket-book).
[Van E. gave his own pocket-book, which had no connection with the
deceased.]

Nelly. " Yes, I think I mean this. It does not seem to be that gentle-
man's influence. What's that red pocket-book ?" (Takes red in left and
brown in right hand.)

Van E. " Is it what you mean ? "

Nelly. "Yes." (So Mrs. Verrall's note : but van E. thought the answer
was negative.) " I want to tell you. That gentleman of the hair likes silk
handkerchiefs better than white ones. Not a rich gentleman, but thought
that if he lived longer he would have had a lot of money for it ; just when
he was going to have it, he died."

[He was not at all poor, but started a new line of business shortly before
he died.]

" You went up a lot of steps round and round, and both stood at the top
looking. [See first sitting, p. 89.] He was very fond of talking and thinking
about stars, astrology. If you were to find — he's got some treatise on it " [D.].

[These words were said more slowly, as if some one else were speaking.
This led Mrs. Verrall to say :]

Mrs. V. " He is speaking now, is he not t "

Nelly. " Yes. He has a paper on astronomy " [D.J.

Van E. "What has he done with it?"

NeUy. "Marta — Martin — not in our house, but among them. Foreign
coins — he had a lot of coins " [D.].
VanE. "Where?"

Nelly. "He used to wear a money piece on his watch. Three years before
he died he went across water to a foreign country. I don't know if it was
America. [It was Italy.] As a very young man he had typhoid fever [D.].
He has got a shiny mark here (touching left temple or a little lower).
What do you call it?"

Mrs. V. "A scar."

Van E. (to Mrs. V.) " What do you call this part of the face ?"
Mrs. V. "The temple."

Nelly. " Bather lower than the temple, Mrs. Verrall, on the upper part of
the cheek. Not very big. J ust enough to know."
[The scar was on the breast.]

" He used to wear a ring. I can't think what you were doing when you
went round up those stairs.

104

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[part

" There's Alfred belonging to him : he's much associated with Alfred [D.\
He always used to do like this : "

(Here Mrs. T. rose and walked to the fire, put her hands behind her, and
bent forward, rising on her toes, as she talked.)

[This was most characteristic.]

" When talking he used to bend forward, rock in front of fire, nearly tip
oyer. He didn't mind gettiug wet, he didn't take care enough. He used to
go out without au umbrella when it was pouring."

[The pneumouia from which he died was the consequence of exposure.]

" Now it's all gone dark, foggy. But I will come back." (After a pause.)
" There was an old gentleman cried ever so, and was so sorry when he died
[D.J. And a young lady [R] Lady much younger than the gentleman."

(On awaking Mrs. T. said that she felt as if at the top of a high building.)

At Hendon, Middlesex, 10 a.m. Present : Mrs. Thompson, Lady X., Dr.
van Eeden.

Nelly. "I want those treasures of the parcel. Is it you that wrapped
it up?w

VanE. "Yes."

Nelly. "Are these people dead? Perhaps it's your influence." (Takes
parcel which contains relics of young suicide.) " I am frightened. I feel as
if I want to run away." (To van E.) "That lady won't be cross." (To Lady
X.) "Don't go away. I feel rather frightened What's Marfa, Martha?
She's got a lot of people belonging to her."

Van E. "That's my wife."

Nelly. " She was not very well. It is better now. She went to lie down
[D.]. Old gentleman sends his love to Martha. He says : 4 My love,
Martha.'

"This" (pointing to parcel) "is a much younger gentleman. Very
studified, fond of study " [R.]

Van E. " Why were you frightened ? "

Nelly. " Because something seemed like a shock to me. He's not a rich
gentleman. If he lived a bit longer he would have had more. He wanted
to make some " [R.J.

Van E. " How do you know ? "

Nelly. "Mrs. Cartwright tells me."

Van E. " Ask her why you were frightened."

Nelly. " She says because I was afraid of making faults."

[Obviously wrong.]

" Gentleman used to have headache at the back of his head. He used to
take tablets to make his headache go better " [D.]

"Stout William. Had a bad heart. Used to walk backwards and
forwards under some arches. A very knobly stick. He's got a sister

Sitting V.— June 2nd, 1900.

XLIV.]

Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

105

alive, living in Holland. He was not very patient He'd stick to his
work. . . . "

[All references to " Stout William " unrecognised.]

Van E. "You have not told me the principal thing about this man" (parcel).

Nelly. " The principal thing is his sudden death [R.]. I can tell you better
when she (Lady X.) is not there. It frightens me. Everybody was
frightened, seeming to say 4 O dear ! good gracious ! ' . . .

"This gentleman could shoot. He was rather an out-of-doors man.
What a funny hat he used to wear. Bound with a cord around. He had
a velvet jacket You have a velvet jacket too, but not real velvet, and like
trousers [R.J. But that gentleman had real velvet jacket" [References to
dress D.] " I can't see any blood about this gentleman, but a horrible sore
place : somebody wiped it all up. It looks black " [the bullet wound
probably]. "I am happy because that man is happy now. He was in a
state of muddle. And when he realised what he had done, he said it is better
to make amends and be happy."

Van E. " How did he make amends ? "

Netty. " When any people want to kill themselves he goes behind them
and stops their hands, saying, * just wait' He stops their hands from
cutting their throats. He says, * Don't do that : you will wake up and find
yourselves in another world haunted with the facts, and that's a greater
punishment1 He's got such a horror that anybody would do the same thing,
and he asks them to stop, and it makes him so happy." [He cut his own
throat, but recovered ; and afterwards shot himself.]

(To van E.). " You don't seem to have any whiskers. I don't see your head
properly. Some one covers up your head. He covers up your head to show
how his own head was covered up. O dear, isn't it funny ? You must not
cut off your head when you die." [The suicide's head was covered up when
he was found dead. See p. 82.]
* Nelly. " Who is old Frederik ?"

Van E. " My father, I presume."

Nelly. "I like him."

Van E. " Tell about Lady X's grandchild. How did it die ? "

Nelly. " Was it croup ? Something the matter with the throat" [Wrong.
There may have been some confusion with the suicide.]

"The gentleman is bigger than you. He will try and talk through
mother. How do you pronounce Hendrik ?"

Van E. "Very good, it is Hendrik."

Nelly says good-bye to everybody, and to Lady X., " I like you." . . .

[Note by van E. — I did not quite remember the name of the suicide,
and thought it might be Hendrik. A few days later I dreamt about
another friend of mine called " Sam," and I called out, " Sam ! Sam ! " in
my dream. I remembered then that the name of the dead man was also
Sam, or Samuel]

106

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[PABT

Sitting VI.— June 6th, 1900.

At Mrs. Thompson's house, at 3.30 p.m. Present: Mrs. Thompson, Mr.
F. W. H. Myers, Dr. van Eeden, Mr. F. N. Hales (the latter unknown
to Mrs. T. and to van E.).

Nelly asks for the parcel : seems rather disturbed by the presence of a
stranger (Mr. Hales), says " This is a secret," and asks Mr. Hales to make
no notes.

Mr. Myers asks if she wants the stranger to leave.

Nelly. " No, but when one of your friends has committed suicide, you don't
want anybody to know." (To vau E.) u Have you got Martha's letter I "
VanE. "No."

Nelly. " It is a letter on tinted paper : she says somebody is much better i
than they were." [No confirmation of this.]

" This person (of the parcel) talks foreign language [R.]. Has got
something about the throat " [i.e. the wound resulting from the unsuccessful
attempt at suicide] " talks not very distinctly [R.] He can talk English a
bit, but not many [R.J. He is standing before a desk with white knobs on
it [D.J. He was very disappointed and got depressed and got a headache.
Worried much [R.].

" Very friendly, and used to go about a good deal with a tall, fair man,
fair complexion." [He was intimate with a tall, fair man, who in turn
committed suicide two days after him.] " They had a good quarrel." [Pro-
bably right.] " I don't like that fair man. I don't believe in him, don't
trust him. It was a shock to him (parcel-man) to find this out about his
friend [DJ.

" Masters — who is Mr. Masters ? [?]

"What has this man (parcel-man) got on his left forefinger? A shiny
mark on his left forefinger "[D.].

Van E. " How do you know his throat was cut ? "
Nelly. " I see it An open windpipe."
Van E. " And did he die from that ? "

Netty. u Of course. How could one live with an open windpipe ?"

[" This was a plain hint, but Nelly did not take it The wound in the
throat, resulting from the first attempt at suicide, healed ; the second time
he shot himself. This shows both how Nelly concludes falsely from partial
information and how slowly she takes hints." — Note by van E.]
(Mr. Myers and Mr. Hales leave the room.)

Nelly, (to van E.) " I want you by yourself. I do not like them to know
all these things. Would you like me to hold the parcel?" (Takes the
parcel. Long pause.) " Ought not I to be frightened ? He did it himaelf.
He was a very great friend of yours. Had greatest admiration for you.
Before he did it he told you about his work. He used to confide in
you [R.].

" It is not that he did not want to come himself, but the strange gentle-

Digitized by

xliv.] Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 107

man upset him." [This because Nelly had promised that he would talk
himself.]

" He was alive when your Queen was crowned [R.]. He had a way, used
to be like that (swaying her hand) [R.J. I do love him-— really I do. It
was a great shock to your wife. She said she could not have thought
it of him [R.].

" Something very peculiar happened to his uncle." [Statement about
uncle found to be true on subsequent enquiry.]
" Ought I to like the strange gentleman ?

" This gentleman wore ring with a dark stone in it [D.]. He wrote some
letters that you read [R.]. You looked at them and said : ' How could a
man do such a thing that could write like that ? ' " [" This was my senti-
ment, though I do not recollect having said the words." — Note by van E.]
(Coughing) "Could he not make the people have what he wrote ?"

Van E. " But he got his writings printed."

Nelly. "Yes, but it gave him no satisfaction [R.]. He thought great
things of those things [R.]. You wrote a book, he admired it very much
[R.]. But he criticised it nevertheless [R.J. He does not seem to have had
a wife [RJ. I see him sleeping alone. Do you like that tall friend ? "

Van E. " You made a mistake about that friend He is dead."

Nelly. " No, that's somebody else.

"This man (the suicide) is not suffering for having done this. He is only
sorry to think he caused his friends so much trouble. That tall friend is
something like Charles (?). When they found him (the suicide) he could not
speak."

VanE. "Was he dead?" (No answer.)

Ndly. " He said * Don't take me back to the horror of it.1 He did not
want any one to make him live." [See p. 82.]

" I never saw any one so gentle. He would not show me any blood on his
neck, because he was afraid I should be frightened. He always wanted to
save any one from trouble.

" You know somebody named van Renterghem."

Van E "That's a different person."

Nelly. "He's going to send something for you to look at [W.J. This is not
the cap-man."

Van E. " Why a cap-man ? "

Nelly. " He wears something like a hat, a round hat."
Van E. " But that's no cap."
Nelly. " Yes, it is a University hat."

Van E. " But you have the cap there in the parcel." [The parcel contained
a grey travelling cap].

Nelly. "Oh, indeed. Nobody knows that. I thought it was his collar
and his vest."

[Van E. comments : "I remember Nelly speaking once more about a collar
in the parcel. She seemed not to know why she used the word cap-man and
sought for an explanation, which was wrong." J. G. P. comments : " Nelly

108

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[part

always referred to a prominent character of some earlier sittings, at which
▼an E. was not present, as ' the cap-man.' She probably said, * this is not tke
cap-man,' meaning that there was some association of a cap with this indi-
vidual, but that he must not be confused with ' the cap-man-1 *]

Nelly. " If you ask, you get a lot more things from him. They got some-
thing velvet belonging to him. I can't understand his English. He could
not speak so well as you [RJ But he could read it [R], Your thirteen
year old is a boy " [R].

Van E. " I never said a girl."

Nelly. u Does your wife mind ? How many Frederiks have you got f I
wish .... This man could put up with inconveniences to oblige other
people [R.]. Don't you think it would have all come right if he had waited f
[R]. He says he can see it. He does not want to come back to Bussum [R].
He is very happy.

" Does your wife always wear a black dress? [W.J. I never see her in any-
thing different [W.]. She wears a wedding ring — and another. She doe*
not wear many rings. The top ring is worn."

[" All this would have been perfectly right if applied to the lady of the
Utrecht hair. During my absence she had sent the ring to the goldsmith
for repair, as I heard on coming home." — Note by van E.]

Van. E. " This must be somebody else. She wears no rings at all."

Nelly. " It may be somebody belonging to the cap-man. I do not want to
put you off. But next Thursday I promise you that he will speak. I want
you all by myself."

(Mr. Myers and Mr. Hales enter.)

Van E. " Tell me about Miss C.'s little brother."

Nelly. " It was a grown-up man saying ' This is my sister.'

" This matter (the suicide of the cap-man) was all in the newspapers. But
he is sorry, because there was a mis-statement of facts in one newspaper.
This grieves him, because it was already bad enough for his friends."

[The facts of the case were misrepresented in the newspapers to the
detriment of the deceased man's friends, but van E. could not find out what
particular newspaper was more to blame than the rest.]

" He wants to know why his life is to be talked over in a foreign country.'
(End of Sitting.)

Sitting VII.— Jone 7th, 1900.

At Mrs. Thompson's house. Present : Mrs. Thompson, Dr. van Eeden.

Since the last sitting on June 5th Mrs. Thompson has had a peculiar cough
quite unusual to her. It was like that of the suicide. [Mr. Myers writes :
" Mrs. T. independently told me that this huskiness began when she first sa^v
van Eeden on this visit of his to England, and continued throughout 1.
stay, and went off* half-an-hour after his departure. She had no cold."]

Trance began at 3.15 after a long wait.

Digitized by

xliv.] Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 109

Nelly, " That gentleman that made my mother have a sore throat, he
came and tried to make mother write. He wanted to say something about
the name of that place."

Mrs. Thompson showed van £. what she had written on a sheet of paper
after the last sitting on June 5th, in a state of trance. It was :

Notten Velp. [First name unknown to van E. Velp is a well-known
village in Holland. Van E. does not know if his friend had ever been
there. See p. 8a]

Zwart, [The dead man had no relations of this name, so far as van E.
knows. See p. 83.] (An illegible name follows.)

Wedstrijden, (Meaning " races," the ij being written u,)

[Races were held near van E.'s house every year.]

Ndly, " He has not come yet, but I am waiting for him."

(Van E. takes the parcel from a small bag.)

Nelly, " I don't want that glass bottle with brushes in it. I want the
treasures." (Takes parcel.) "The glass bottle is on the washing stand"

[There had been such a bottle in the bag the day before.]

" Do you believe in cremation like he does ? He has not got experience by
being cremated himself. But he wanted to be " [D.].

(Mrs. Thompson's hand tries to write with pencil on paper. Writes :
41 Wedstruden " again. Long silence. Mrs. Thompson seems very restless,
feeling her throat with her hands.)

Nelly, " He wants you to speak Hollands, Hollands."

(Van E. speaks a few words in Dutch, asking if his dead friend heard
and understood. After this comes a very expressive pantomime, during
which Mrs. Thompson takes van E.'s hands firmly as if to thank him
very heartily, making different gestures.)

Nelly, " He understood. I was not talking through mother then. Your
journey to England has been very successful. I mean political [R.]. I
don't mean cap-man.

" This gentleman looks such a big man beside you. All this side (right)
is all light He's got a dead brother [D.]. He was very much surprised
to meet him. He was dead longer [D.]. (Speaks hoarsely, like van E.'s
dead friend.)

"He could not talk better. All the time he is nearly in possession of
mother. That's what makes my mother's throat so." (Rummaging in the
parcel.) "I am trying to get a fresh place in the parcel.

"What's 4 Vrouw Poss' . . 'Poss.'"

Van E. " Vrouw Post— Ik versta je."

[This was the exact pronunciation — the final "t" being but slightly
sounded in Dutch — of a name very familiar to van E. Vrouw (= Mrs.)
Post is a poor workwoman who used to come to his house every day.]

(When van E. repeated the words and said "ik versta je" (I under-
stand) Mrs. Thompson laughed very excitedly and made emphatic gestures
of pleasure and satisfaction, patting his head and shoulders, just as his friend
"would have done.)

110

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[part

Nelly. "He is so glad you recognised him. He is not so emotions
usually.

" What is Wuitsbergen . . . Criuswergen ? "

[This is very nearly the right pronunciation of the word Cruysbergen.
the old name of vau K's place, Walden. Van E. writes : " It is remark-
able that it was not at all like the pronunciation of the word as if read by an
English person, but as if heard. This name is still in use among us, and my
dead friend used it always. The new name Walden, which was often in
my mind, and which I even pronounced before Mrs. Thompson, never
came in her trance."]

Van E. " Ih weet wat je zeggen wil, zeg het nog eens." (" I know what
you mean, say it agaiu.")

(Nelly tries again and says " Hans."

She then says that she is going away for two minutes. Mrs. Thompson
awakening says : " I smell some sort of anaesthetic stuff like chloroform.
I can taste it in my mouth. I was dreaming about being chloroformed, and
your trying to wake me up.")

["This is very remarkable, the taste being probably that of iodoform,
which was used in healing the wound in the throat of my dead friend
Mrs. Thompson, in reply to inquiry, said that she did not know the smell of
iodoform." — Note by van E.]

4.45. Trance came on again suddenly in the middle of conversation.

Nelly. " That gentleman was pleased and delighted."

Van E. " Why does he not give his name ? "

Nelly. " It is like Sum, Thum, or like Sjam. Not quite this. Please, do
you pronounce it properly."

Van E. " Yes, indeed, it is Sam."

Nelly. "That is it. He says it sounded like Sjam through his bad
throat.

" There is a Charles, or what they call Charles in England. (Coughs.)
What's that stuff in my throat 1 "

Van E. " I suppose that's what made mother (i.e. Mrs. T.) smell chloro-
form."

Nelly. " Yes. Have you got his watch-chain ? "
Van E. " No."

Nelly. " Sjom, Sjum. It seems that the thing he died for came all right
after. He said 'sprit Hollands,' 'Sam — Hans — 0 Sam — ffoest* (Hoest-
cough.) He wants to know who has got his books ... his books."

" Spreek Hollands," meaning " speak Dutch," van E. asked in Dutch :
" Hoe noemde je my ? " (" How did you call me ? ")

Nelly. " He says it is not like Fred. He wants me to tell you all about
the Sunday that he was last with you. ' Wocken,' he keeps saying ' Wocken/
' Brief voor.' . . . ('Letter for') . . . 'Hans geeft'm . . .'"

[" After this I had no time to write down what happened, or was said,
verbatim. In the other parts of the notes I have been as exact as I could."—
Note by van E.]

xliv.] Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. Ill

(Van E. asks in Dutch who were Zwart and Notten. Nelly says Zwart
shot himself in the forehead. Taking a pencil Mrs. TVs hand writes that
" Notten is a cousin, with me Amsterdam." Again " Wedstruden " — " near
us " — i.e. near Bussum. Van E. says he understands. Then "We know well
by us." [This expression " We know by us " is a distinct Hollandism.] The
names Sam and Poss are written. Then the name Paul is spoken. Mrs.
Thompson appeared now to be completely under the control of van E.'s
dead friend, and began to speak in a low hoarse voice.)

Sam. "Head muddled mine was. When I was regrettable — thing. I
must know where friends. Success for me."

Van E. " Zeg den naam van je vriend." (" Say your friend's name.")

(Different gestures to show that the words must be drawn out of the
mouth and pressed into the head, gestures expressing great difficulty.)

Sam. "Max . . . Frederik make progress. People shall read and read
and re-read and your plans shall be carried out after you. [This points
clearly to van E.'s social plans.] Truth. Do not (...?..) away the truth.
I shall talk in our own beloved Dutch. In the sleep helps to clear out that
woman's head."

Van E. " Welke vrouw ? " (" Which woman ? ")

Sam. " This woman." (Mrs. T. presses her own breast.) " I shall speak
more clear." (Hoarse voice.) " Why try and make me live ? Not come
back."

(Van E. asks, always in Dutch, after the friend who imitated his suicide.
Violent gestures of disquiet and horror. Mrs. T.'s hand takes the cap and
shows it.)

Sam. "When I was in England greatest disappointment I went to
England just before." [He was never in England.] " Did you think dread-
ful of me?"

Nelly. " Dr. van Eeden, the gentleman is gone. Sends nice thoughts to
you. He will write down in Dutch words in mother's sleep."

(V an E. tells Nelly that he had dreamt that he would visit England in
his 59th year.)

Nelly. "That Sam told you that . . . Samuel ... He was in England."

Nelly. " Did you understand what was * Wedstruden ' ? "
Van E. " O yes. But what is it in English ? "
Nelly. " I cannot find out."

(It must be understood that van E. spoke the few Dutch questions without
translating and got answers immediately.)

112

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[part

APPENDIX II.

(1) The last sitting of Dr. van Eeden 's first series was on Dec 4th,
1899. He returned to Holland a day or two later.

Extract from Sitting on Jan. 5th, 1900, 87 Sloane St., S.W. Present:
Mrs. , Mrs. F., Hon. E. Feilding, and J. G. Piddington.

Nelly, (to J. G. P.) " Tell Dr. van Eeden he kept calling me last night (ue.
Jan. 4-5). He was inside those curtains. He wears curtains round his bed ;
he was inside them and he called me. I went to him and I think he knows
it. He told me so, and be is waiting to hear if you send my message. He
was asleep. 'Now, Nelly, you come to me and remember/ he cried out.
His wife was stout . . . He was in bed alone, not with his wife, he was bv
himself. He had had a hard day's work, yet was sufficiently awake to
call me."

J. G. P. sent a transcript of the above to Dr. van Eeden and
received the following reply :

Dear Mr. Piddington,

In the diary of my dreams I find on January 3rd that I had what I call a
" clear dream " with full consciousness on the night of [Jan.] 2-3, between
Tuesday and Wednesday. In those dreams I have power to call people and
see them in my dream. I had arranged with Nelly that I should call her in
the first dream of this sort, and I did so on the said night. She appeared to
me in the form of a little girl, rather plump and healthy- looking, with loose,
light-coloured hair. [Note that at sittiug on Nov. 29, 1899, Nelly had
described her hair as black and curly, in van E.'s hearing. See note ad loc,,
p. 90. — J. G. P.] She did not talk to me, but looked rather awkward or embar-
rassed, giving me to understand that she could not yet speak to me ; she had
not yet learned Dutch. This was the second dream of the sort after my stay in
England. The first occurred on Dec. 11. In this dream I also tried to call
Nelly, but it was no success. Some grown-up girl appeared, who spoke
Dutch, and as my consciousness was not quite clear, I had forgotten that she
was to be English.

The particulars are true. I slept alone, in the bed with the curtain, or
rather drapery, hanging before it. I was extremely tired, and slept deeply
and. soundly, which is always a condition for that sort of dream.

The mistake about the date does not seem very important, as it was
probably the first sitting you had after Jan. 3. [It was the first sitting since
Dec. 18, 1899.— J. G. P.] . . . Tell Nelly next time she was right about my

Walden, Bussum, Jan. 10, 1900.

xuv.J Account of Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 113

calling, and ask her to tell you again when she has been aware of it. But let
her not make guesses or shots. I shall try to give her some communications.

Nelly made no reference to Dr. van Eeden at sittings held on the
10th, 12th, or 16th of January.

(2) Extract from record of sitting of Jan. 18, 1900, at 87 Sloane
Street. Present : Mr. J. 0. Wilson (pseudonym) and J. G. Piddington.

At end of sitting J. G. P. asks Nelly : " Have you been to see Dr. van
Eeden?"

Nelly. "No. I haven't. This is a mixture. Dr. van Eeden has sum-
moned me twice, and Elsie," — (here J. G. P. interrupted Nelly to ask who
" Elsie " was, not having heard her mentioned before) " a little girl that used
to talk before I came— Elsie Line — came to me and said * Old Whiskers in the
bed is calling you.' "

J. O. P. " When was that ? "

Nelly. "It was before the sitting with" — (Nelly then proceeded to describe
the personal appearance of a lady and gentleman, both unknown by name to
Mrs. Thompson, who had attended the sitting of Jan. 16). " Both times was
before that" (i.e. before Jan. 16). "I said: * Bother Whiskers! you go
instead of me' — and very likely she did go. I hope he didn't think she was
me. You want my description. I haven't red hair. It's as light as mother's
— not red—more look of brightness like mother's — and then I've nicer eyes
than mother . . . dark, wide open eyes. I'm fat, and look as if I was seven ;
I am older." . . . [but cf. sitting of Nov. 29th, 1899, p. 90].

The following is an extract from Dr. van Eeden's diary.

Jan. 15, [1900]. After the letter from London, I made the plan to tell
Nelly in my dream the name " Walden " ; afterwards to tell her to think of
a little monkey of mine that died some time ago.

The dream began with a great popular festival somewhere near Brussels.
The music was very pleasant to me. Then I walked away towards moun-
tains, and found myself before a large bay or inlet of the sea. Then I got
full consciousness and recollected my plans. At first I called out " Elsie !
Elsie !" but then remembering that this was wrong I called "Nelly ! Nelly !"
Nobody came. I became anxious, feeling that she would not come, and
called " Nelly, you must come, and think of Walden, Walden. That's where
I live." I did not pronounce the word monkey. I awoke without having
seen anybody.

(3) Sittings were held on Jan. 23rd, Jan. 25th, and Feb. 1st, 1900,
but no reference was made to Dr. van Eeden.

Extract from record of sitting of Feb. 6th, 1900, at Mrs. Thompson's
house. Present : J. G. Piddington alone.

Yours very truly,

F. VAir Ekdkn.

114

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[part

Directly after Mrs. T. had become entranced, Nelly began :

" Haven't you (i.e. J. G. P.) got a letter from van Eeden in your pocket ?"
[J. G. P. had not got a letter from van E. in his pocket, but had received a
letter from him on Feb. 2nd, i.e. subsequently to the last sitting on Feb. 1st
Mrs. Thompson, however, would have known in her normal state that it was
at least not unlikely that correspondence would be passing between van E.
and J. G. P. at this time.]

" He hasn't been so frisky as usual — not so much up to his work — out of
sorts — not very well." [On Jan. 21st, van E. was suffering from a " rather
violent catarrh," which kept him in bed for one day, and in his room for two
days, his first indisposition for two years.]

" I haven't been to see Dr. van Eeden."

J. O.P. "For how long?"
• Nelly. " I haven't been not since I talked to Mrs. C. on a Friday, I think
[perhaps Jan. 26th, 1900]. I went there the night of the day when mother
had neuralgia after a sitting at your house [perhaps Thursday, Jan. 25th,
1900]— on a Thursday— but van E. wouldn't talk to me. That's how I
sensed he wasn't well ; and there's a boy who isn't very well at his
house."

Dr. van Eeden wrote on receiving the transcript of the notes of this
incident :

On Wednesday, Jan. 24, 1 went again to my hut and slept there, though
not yet quite " frisky." I had no dreams about Nelly, as my " clear " dreams
only come when I am healthy and well-disposed. My boys were in good
health all the time. I saw Nelly in my dreams on Jan. 20th and talked
with her : on Febr. 1st she seemed to turn back as soon as I saw her.

Although it has not been possible to fix with certainty the day of
Mrs. T.'s visit to Mrs. C, nor the Thursday on which Mrs. T. had
neuralgia, yet it seems clear that knowledge was obtained of Dr. van
Eeden's state of health at the time in some supernormal manner.

(4) The next sitting was on April 19th, 1900, J. G. Piddington
present alone. In the course of it Nelly, independently of any hint
from J. G. P., said :

"Dr. van Eeden and I were talking last night. I couldn't make him
understand. He wasn't like asking me to talk like the time before, but he
knew I was there. He's going to have a sort of breakdown in his health
before August."

J. O. P. " How can you foretell that ? "

Nelly. " I see a picture of him in bis bed — wanting uourishment He's
prostrated, unfit for work. He's doing some writing, and he shouldn't
go on with it. That's what I tried to say to him in the bed last
night."

xliv.] Account of Sittings with Mrs. Tliompson. 115

Dr. van Eeden writes :

Walden, April 25 [1900].

I do not remember any remarkable dream about Nelly since February.
But what she has said seems to have a meaning, considering the following
facts.

At the end of March I got an attack of influenza and was obliged, for the
second time this year, to stay a day in bed- Being accustomed to work in
the fields every day, I took up that work again very soon in rather cold
weather. This brought me down again, with fever, pain in the muscles, etc.
I gave up labour for a few days until I seemed to be strong again and began
anew, but again with the same result. This has occurred thrice until I
resolved to stop manual labour for a fortnight All this corresponds pretty
accurately with what Nelly has been saying. On April 19, however, I was
all right again, and I have been doing my usual work without hindrance
since that time. I think there is no reason to see a prediction in her state-
ments, as they correspond so exactly with the facts which occurred shortly
before the seance.

116

J. 0. Wilson and J. 0. Piddington.

[P1BT

IV.

A RECORD OF TWO SITTINGS WITH MRS. THOMPSON.
By J. O. Wilson.
Communicated by J. G. Piddington.

[In presenting a pseudonymous paper to the Society I am breaking
through a salutary rule. I should therefore state that the gentleman
who is here called Mr. J. O. Wilson wrote the paper at my special
request. It seems to me far better for the actual sitter, if a careful
and intelligent observer and thoroughly conversant with the problems
involved, to record his own impressions of the phenomena than for &
third person to intervene with his opinion of matters with which he
is only indirectly concerned. Mr. Wilson was an admirable sitter,
cautious and discrete, yet sympathetic. Nelly hit off one of his charac-
teristic traits with her usual bluntness : "This gentleman would tell
the truth, he'd own to everything"; in other words, Mr. Wilson,
though of a critical disposition, yet exhibited none of the reluctance,
which is, I fear, not uncommon with sceptics, to admit the correctness
or the approximate correctness of statements made by the medium in
trance.

Mr. Wilson's reasons for concealing his identity appear to me satis-
factory. They have been dictated solely by his anxiety to avoid
causing pain to some members of the family of the lady who is the
chief subject of the communications, and not by any personal objection
to publicity. I am responsible both for the detailed record of the
sittings and also for the notes on the evidence embodied in the record ;
but the facts given in the notes were supplied to me by Mr. Wilson
either verbally or in writing, and have in every case received his
approval.

The omissions, which are shown thus . . . , relate in every instance
to matters unconnected with Mr. Wilson.

J. G. Piddington.]

X.LIV.] Record of Two Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 117

Sitting I.

January 18th, 1900, 5 p.m. ; at 87 Sloane Street, London, S.W. Present :
J. O. Wilson, J. G. Piddington, Mrs. Thompson.

R = Right. W. = Wrong.

D. = Doubtful or unrecognised.

(Before trance J. O. W. speaks of reporting sermons and shows knowledge
of Mr. F. W. H. Myers. Mrs. Thompson aware that J. G. P. has noted
mention of sermon reporting.)
- Nelly. " I don't like mother to use that (crystal) ball. Fm not nervous."
(J. G. P. gives a lady's stocking to Mrs. T.)
" Has he got the square envelope with the mark on it ? "

[Not recognised ; but see further references to envelope below.]
" There's a sore throat about this. [W.] Let that gentleman come and sit
there by me. There isn't a dead influence about this."

[Incorrect, and perhaps some slight indication given by J. O. W.'s
manner that the information was wrong.]
" Yes— wait a minute. . . . This gentleman (i.e. J. O. W.) would tell you
the truth — he'd own to everything."

[True and characteristic, I should say. — Note by J. G. P.]
" The feeling is of live influence. Please tell me if it is of a dead influence."
t. (J. G. P. says " Dead " on receiving intimation from J. O. W.)

r " I can see a girl with hair down her back, darker than mother's but not
black, not pushed back, but a cutting over the forehead like a fringe."

[This is a very good description of a girl cousin of the deceased lady,
who is in these records called Miss Clegg, and who died at the age of 24.]
" She (i.e. Miss Clegg) seems to be taking charge of a little boy, a tiny
brother or baby who died a long time ago." [See below.] " The baby looks
up to her not as to a mother, but as if to an elder sister. There is some
one very clever at drawing : and this girl (the cousin) is always so interested
in drawings : she seems to go and watch some one drawing."

[This seems to refer to a man — an intimate friend both of J. O. W.
and of Miss Clegg's family — who can draw cleverly, and is fond of
amusing children by impromptu illustrations of fairy tales, etc. The
girl-cousin was especially interested in watching him draw.]
" Is it too ordinary to say blue dress with white braid on ? Sort of sailor
dress."

[All this fits well for the deceased lady's cousin, who at the time was
wearing a kind of sailor dress trimmed with white braid.]
" Oh, dear ! something like something coming. There is something in an
envelope I ought to have belonging to the lady. The girl in blue and the
lady connected with the stocking are not the same person."

[Throughout the sitting, with perhaps one slight exception, Nelly kept
the "lady of the stocking" — Miss Clegg — and blue," who is

assumed to be her cousin, quite distinct. Thf the time of

Digitized by Google

118

J. 0. Wilson and J. G. Piddimgton.

[part

the sitting staying with Miss Clegg's family, with whom J. O. W.
himself was just then residing. The "girl" and the "lady" were
devoted cousins.]

"I've got it in my head that this stocking has been round somebody's
throat." [Nothing known of this.]

" There's an envelope — long in shape — with stamped monogram or some-
thing on the back. It's got G. at the back." [The lady is not known to have
used envelopes stamped with a G., but G. is the initial letter of her Christian
name.] "There's a rather old-fashioned bookcase with glass doors." [R]
" The envelope is there." [The envelopes would have been kept in the book-
case.] " This (i.e. the stocking) has been taken off the lady before she died
[R.] It hasn't a laundry association [R.] — but was taken off when the lady
was not very ilL" [" When she was not ill at all " would be correct.] " There
was an old lady with white hair in the room when the stocking was takes
off— not quite white hair, but streaked" [Probably wrong.] "There is a
chest of drawers in the room with a white cover on. Old-fashioned cover-
do you call it Marcella? White, with a pattern all over and a looped
fringe."

[All references to the bookcase are good ; description quite accurate.
The room opens into a bath-room — in the bath-room is a chest of drawers
with a white fringed cover. This room where the bookcase stands is?
perhaps the most intimate association that could have been named.]
"She wore a twisted brooch. It was like as if it formed a name or
figurea"

(A glove is given to Mrs. T., who keeps stocking.)
J. G. P. " Can you see the name or figures ? "

Nelly. " It's like Gertrude. No, it isn't Gertrude. Gertrude was a very
great friend of the blue dress girl."

[The lady had a brooch of decorative scroll-work, but none forming a
name or figures. But a sister of Miss Clegg states that the description
immediately suggested to her this brooch, and that at first sight the
scroll work looks like a name. The lady's name was Gertrude, though
Nelly does not say so, but merely says, " Gertrude was a very great
friend of the blue dress girl," which was true.]
" The blue dress girl is a person of great importance. The lady was taking
charge of her."

[Both these statements are somewhat indefinite. If " of great import-
ance " means " in the life of the lady," it would be more or less true,
though perhaps somewhat overstated. The lady could not be said to
have taken formal charge of the girl, though the statement has some
significance.]

" I associate this glove with a sailor dress, and with the house where the
funny bookcase is. [R] The bookcase nearly comes to the top of the house
— I mean, of the room. It's like old-fashioned mahogany, red coloured.
(Quite correct.]

xliv.] Record of Two Sittmgs with Mrs. Thompson. 119

"There is some trouble about an examination with the girl in the blue
dress."

[J. O. W. had been going over work with the girl for an approaching
examination, and he writes that the girl was also " very anxious " about
au examination which her brother was going in for in a few months'
time.]

" You wouldn't think the girl delicate, as she is full of vitality and of a
happy disposition [R], and proud of a chain round her neck that she wore.
She didn't look like a 'die-y ' girl."

[This seems to suggest a momentary confusion in Nelly's mind between
the " girl " and the " lady."]
" The chain is like stones, and had something hanging on it."

[J, O. W. did not recognise this with certainty at seance, but wrote
later : "Yes, such a chain was given her at Christmas. She has hung a
silver brooch from it in rather an odd-looking way."]
" I don't know if this gentleman's name is Smith, but it seems written over
him, and associated with him."

[A vague remark, but J. O. W. had been visiting a medium recently
in the company of a Mr. Smith.]
(Mrs. T. holds J. O. W.'s hand.) "The blue girl is a relation of the
other lady." [R — cousin.] " The girl with the blue dress came home with
a lot of examination papers [true of three months later] and broke some-
thing, and there was a fuss about it. [W.] The lady's brother wears
glasses. [R] He is alive. [R] She has got a Margaret — belonging to
that lady." [R — a cousin, as intimate as a sister would be, who used to
live with her.]

" You mustn't be sad in your heart. You've got a much greater trouble
ahead of you than you think." [Not true so far.] "You don't look very
married in your heart. [R] Strange heart this gentleman has to get into.
It's divided (i.e. probably the bookcase, not the heart) into portions, and
there's a long paper in the bookcase [R], and if I can't find the lady's name
you'll find it all there." [Quite intelligible.]

" She was an oW- fashioned young lady — retiring, unassuming, not fashion-
able." [Fairly good description.]

"There's a feeling of illness as if stocking had been taken off dead person."
[This is wrong, and is in contradiction to what was said earlier. Cf. below
similar contradiction about bicycle.] " Not a laundry sort of feeling. [R]
It hasn't been washed. [R] There was a bicycle with gold marks on the
rim associated with that lady." [Quite accurate, but cf. p. 125.]

"That long paper. You pull it (ue. probably 'the drawer') out, and then
find a long one." [R]

"It doesn't matter about all those books. Do you (£«. J. O. W.) write
with a quill pen ? because I see a quill pen there." [J. O. W. does not use a
quill pen, but the lady did.]

" Those books would just suit old , they are about all kinds of dull and

dirty old things."

120

J. 0. Wilson and J. 0. Piddington.

[PAK

[This statement seems to refer to the bookcase so often mentioned, is
which is contained the family library, — which might fairly be described
as " heavy reading," — not the books generally read in the household.]
J. G. P. " Can you describe and give title of one particular book ? "
Nelly. " The third one from the end on the left hand side bottom of the
row is a red one. Can't read the title, it's inside."

[The third book in bottom row was covered with brown paper, and
had the title written outside. It was a French dictionary, with grata
back and red sides.]
" In that room there's one of those chairs that makes a noise when you sh
down on it : an old creaky chair." [A very definite and apt reference.]
" She has got a dead baby with her."

[J. O. W. was doubtful of this at first, having forgotten that the ladr
had two sisters who died, one as quite a baby.]
" I've got one of mother's dead babies at our house. Mother doesn't think
it was a little live boy — but it was."

Trance breaks.

(Mrs. T. re-entranced after an unusually short interval, while J. 0.^-
and J. G. P. were out of the room. On entering they found NeUj
chattering volubly to nobody.)
" Something about Emma that belonged to the lady— or Emily." fladj
had an Aunt Emma.]

" Give that ring to me." (Mrs. T. might have overheard whispered con-
versation between J. O. W. and J. G. P. — the former having proposed tt
hand a ring to the medium. This conversation took place before Mrs. T.
was first entranced.)

" She came here and said, ' Please ask him to give you my ring,' but didn't
■call him Henry." [J. O. W. was wearing a ring which had belonged to the
lady. The mention of the name Henry is meaningless.]

" This lady doesn't belong to town at all : she used to live right away in
the country."

[Her home was in London, but during the greater part of her engage-
ment, and before, when at school, she lived in the country.]
" She has got a little satchel with an outside pocket. It's not like mother's
— not a bag — your sister gave it as a present to the lady." [The lady had »
little satchel of the kind described, but had bought it herself.] " I want the
ring — it has got pimples in it."

[Stones are set into the gold of the ring which J. O. W. was wearing,
which do give it a rather 'pimply' appearance.]
" It's like mother's ring, that she lost : just like that. That bag is there
now — it's in existence." [R. — J. O. W.'s notes give " You've got it," which
was true of the satchel.]
J. G. P. " Ask the lady for a message."
Nelly. 44 About Worthing 1 "
J. G. P. " What about Worthing ? "

xliv.] Record of Two Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 121

NeUy. "She had a friend at Worthing, when they had typhoid fever
there." [ W.] " She used to wear a deep fur cape, not long but rather short
He (Le. J. O. W.) had something to do with buying it : not a mantle, but
short."

[The lady had no such cape, and J. O. W. never had anything to do
with buying one.]

" Gold and twisted brooch — twisted like a Staffordshire knot— a quantity
of S's, and a little stone in the middle."

[J. O. W.'s comment at the time was : " Perhaps right, but I think
not." Later, a sister of the deceased lady thought this was a reference
to the scroll-work brooch already mentioned, which, however, contained
no stone.]

" If that lady had lived a bit longer, she would have been better off in
money." [A certain definite, though quite small, sum of money would
undoubtedly have come to Miss Clegg on her marriage, which was to have
taken place a few months after the actual date of her death.]

" When you're at our house, you're not sorry that youVe left your loved
ones. It's not selfish."

(Trance breaks at 6.25. Nelly promises to return in eight minutes.
Trance resumed after a shorter interval than usual. J. G. P. absent
Nelly asks for something long and black.)

" You won't mind me saying that there is a dead baby in connection with
this stocking." [See above.]

" Some one named Dorothy associated with that lady " [a very intimate
cousin] " not an old person [R] more like Dolly " [not called Dolly].

"That lady sends her darling sweetest best love." [Phrase not character-
istic]

"You know that lady says that you have of hers a broad silver brace-
let" [B.]

(J. G. P. returns) . . .

"I like this gentleman (i.e. J. O. W.)very much,-— it's very important.
Common names occur. This lady is asking about Jane. Where's Jane?
Where's Jane ? Who is Jane ? Ask her." [Jane has no meaning.]

" She (i.e. evidently ' the lady ') says, * what made me ask about shawl was
because when ill I did have a shawl, though not a black one, round my
shoulders ; it was a grey one.' She said it isn't black, you must guess its
colour." [W.]

"Take care of this for Dorothy." [Dorothy died before the lady.]
"There's an old customer come along now. He used to wear an
Inverness coat— father, or grandfather rather, of lady — great difficulty in

breathing, though not fat He had a boot-jack — was rather irritable

he'd bang that boot-jack down. He is with that lady now. He has got
a Samuel."

[This old gentleman is a reminiscence from nnntfcsr aeries of sittings.
There is no connection between the old gentle V W. or Miss

Clegg.]

Digitized by

122

J. 0. Wilson and J. 0. Piddington. [put

" It seems as if this ring was put away somewhere — not direct like tfar
stocking — in a box with some fluffy wool before that gentleman wore it9

[It was sent to the jewellers1 after the lady's death, but was only aw
a few days, and had since been worn by J. O. W.]
"She wasn't a lady of great jewelry [R.], but had ear-rings like litt>
bee-hives. [W.] She has gone away now. I see these things like a
panorama. Katie knows a lot more about her than I do." (" Katie knows '
said very indignantly.)

[The only association with the name Katie is a young servant, vb
was always treated as a friend of the family, and is alive.]
" Mrs. Cartwright is coming to talk to me. Mrs. Cartwright has nearly
got wings ; — that's what they say here ; that's a proverb, a saying at our
house. (To J. O. W.) You tell them to take all those furs out of tk
drawers : otherwise the moths will get at them. Flip it on the table, aac
the feathers will fall out. [W.] She's worrying over that detail."

"Mr. Myers is feeling rather cross — I don't know why. Something
rather upset him — he's ruffled. He seems as if he had come here. Tell hm
he has got his feathers ruffled." (6.50 p.m.)

[Mr. Myers wrote, "rather good, . . . but coincidence not close/
J. G. P. knew at the time that F. W. H. M. might be feeling annoyed
See below.]

(References here followed to Mrs. Benson and to Dr. Van Eeden, whkfc
are recorded elsewhere.)

(To J. O. W.) " Look for that letter with G. at the back. Tm not sure
it's a G. at the back. If s like a round O. It is like a G. Katie knew aC
about family ; she could tell you much better."

[Katie did not know "all about the family," but necessarily must
have known a good deal.]

End of sitting.

Sitting II.

January 25th, 1900, 5 p.m. ; at 87 Sloane Street, London, S.W. Present :
J. O. Wilson, J. G. Piddington, Mrs. Thompson.

[Before trance Mrs. Thompson said that Nelly had told her that " the lady
from the time before (obviously referring to ' the lady ' of the sitting held on
January 18th) bad wanted to show her (i.e. Nelly) varicose veins on her left
leg, and that this was the reason of her very hurried departure at the close
of Mrs. Benson's second sitting on January 23rd, 1900."]

Nelly. "You're talking philosophy. Where is Ben? There's a Ben
belonging to the stocking lady with the bad leg." [R. — Intimate friend of
family.] " It wasn't a long black shawl : it was a stocking. I waut that
letter — not the stocking. It wasn't only her leg, but varicose veins as well
>r her thigh." [W.]

Digitized by Google

xliv.] Record of Two Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 123

" It was true about the bracelet, wasn't it ? "
J, 0. W. "Yes."

NeUy. " Because you didn't know it was true last time." [W.]

(A slip of paper containing rough notes of small expenditure*, written
by Miss Clegg, was then handed to Mrs. T.)

" A peritonitis feeling about this letter. [W.] It's like Auntie A 's

peritonitis — that sort of pain — toothache in your inside." [Auntie A. is a
deceased sister of Mrs. Thompson.]

" Bound books of music belonging to this lady.* [W.]
(To J. O. W.) "You're untidy, but she was very tidy— always putting
tidy after somebody."

[J. O. W. writes : "Just the reverse true." J. G. P. notes: "But
this is more a matter of opinion than of fact."]
(To J. G. P.) " I know what Mr. Myers had his feathers ruffled for. It
was your fault. It was because of something you wrote."

[" True."— Note by F. W. H. M See above.]

" It doesn't seem to help me on much, this letter. I want that lady to
come and talk to me. Does it matter if her mother comes as well?" [The
lady's mother is living.]

" She has got an old lady named Annie with her." [D.]
"I'm very undecided about this (sotto voce). It's very strange. This
had been inside the pocket of fur cloak with fur inside." [W.]

(At this point or shortly before a purse had been handed to the
medium, but the notes do not record the fact.)
" You know shoes with cloth material tops and leather soles. She used
to wear these in the house, the lady of the purse — the peritonitis lady.
That's the association with the influence of the purse. [R.] The money
used to be emptied out and the purse given to some one else to put money
in. The purse not always belonging to one person." [Vague, but perhaps
right.]

"I can see that gentleman going by Richmond, looking out of the train.
A sort of Ealing feeling. He has to walk along a road that's not paved
nor curbed. It's a made road — with lamps in it — but unfinished — not a
new road." [Mit»s Clegg's home was in a suburb, which is reached by the
Richmond or Ealing trains. J. O. W. had often visited Miss Clegg
there, and was staying there at the time of these sittings. The
description of the road is quite accurate, except that it is not "un-
finished."]

"This — the purse — was under the pillow when the lady was ill in bed.
[W.] You know those glass things that shake — lustres ; some of those —
they are downstairs in the lady's house — immediately underneath the room
where the bed was where the lady was ill." [D. She died in a stranger's
house.]

"This lady has got an umbrella with white handle. It's a straight-
like ivory— handle. [W.] She's not near enough to talk to. It's rather
a strain."

124

J. 0. Wilson and J. G. Piddington.

[fat

" She isn't a lady who takes Notice when I tell her I'm talking. She to
rather in one groove, and did not like thinking in a different way.9

[Characteristic of lady — but Nelly's account hardly tallies with
lady's alleged anxiety to inform her about the varicose veins. Bat
note by J. G. P. at end of paper.]
"Why isn't there any glass in that wardrobe in the lady's bedroom
It's like a big flat cupboard without glass in. [R.] I'm not sore if tla
old lady's name is Annie or Anna — but I think Anna. [W.] There to
somebody the old lady used to call Peggy — no, Patty — but her real nis*
was Martha."

[Right — and given without hesitation. No indication of dissent mad-
by J. O. W. when the name came out first as Peggy. Martha was th
real name of an aunt]
"The old lady used to keep a tin box of special biscuits, to give i
people." [D.]

" That lady of the purse used to work on canvas, cross-stitch ; there's »
cushion worked by her now in existence; cross-stitch — wool-work— m
blocks — in pieces — in colours — different coloured blocks."

[J. O. W. did not find this was right till March, 1901. There is »
cushion worked in cross-stitch by the lady now in existence.]
" That man has got colours all round him like paint pots. So his name
has got something to do with colours." [The lady painted ; J, O, V
did not.]

"Have you got that mother-of-pearl— like tortoiseshell — cardcase? Tbf
one I mean pulls off — it hasn't got a hinge. I don't want the one witi
a hinge." [W.]

(J. O. W. hands a small leather cardcase to Mrs. T.)

" No ; that's not the one. It pulls off like that (making a very charar-
teristic upward movement with one hand, while seemingly holding in the
other hand the lower portion of an imaginary cardcase) — it's hard." [W.]

" I couldn't find the lady anywhere. I could only find a brother of thi*
gentleman who died when he was quite a tiny microbe baby." [R.]

" What does financial crash mean ? Some one belonging to this has had a
financial crash." [There were pecuniary losses, but not a " crash."] " It's a
brother or relation like that of this lady. He was a gentleman who wore
pinee-net.n

[The father lost money. That he wore pince*iiex J. O. W. did not
discover till March, 1901.]

"Uncle Philip wants something. An old gentleman — old gouty gentle-
man, rather fond of curiosities, had a lot of coins." [W. — Perhaps a con-
fusion with some other sitting.]

" You seem to have a lot of old-fashioned furniture at your house. [K]
That old bureau with those bright handles. [R] The stocking lady's
ashamed about her leg."

J. O. P. " Perhaps she'll come, if I go away." (J. G. P. leaves room.)

Ndly. " Will you come aud talk secrets ? Perhaps the lady will come in

xliv.] Record of Two Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 125

a minute. Do you know I put my hand over my eyes. She couldn't bear it
on her eyes."

(When saying this the medium looked up at the electric light over
her head.) [The lady suffered slightly from weakness of the eyes.]
" Where's mother's handkerchief ? "

(Mrs. T. takes J. O. W.'s hand, and Nelly asks for purse instead of
cardca8e.)

" This — the purse — was always being used, and the cardcase only occasion-
ally." [R — but rather obvious.]

*' I told you about Dorothy. Dorothy was a little girl this lady used to
sew for. Used to have sleeves tied up, not like mother's."

[Dorothy, three or four years younger than the lady, was an invalid,
and was companioned for some time by Miss Clegg, who also did sewing
for her at times. Dorothy was a child, and would have sometimes had
her sleeves tied up.]
" The lady had not fat hands, but long and thin and white." [W.] " She
used to have her hair divided in the middle and not pushed back." [R]
44 She didn't seem to me to ride a bicycle, though everybody does."

[Wrong, and this wrong statement is all the more curious, as in the
first sitting Nelly had given correct details of a bicycle belonging to the
lady (see p. 119), and furthermore, the lady's death was due to a bicycle
accident. In spite of these contradictory statements the reference to a
bicycle in connection with Miss Clegg must be accorded considerable
weight, because a bicycle accident caused Miss Clegg's death, and this
is the only mention of a bicycle in all the sittings (about 30) recorded by
J. G. P. ; also in 19 sittings recorded by Mrs. Verrall, a bicycle has been
mentioned once only and a tricycle once only, both references being
definite and correct This shows that Nelly does not use bicycles as bait
to " fish " with (if the mixed metaphor be allowed), in spite of bicycling
being so prevalent a pastime in all ranks of society.]
" There's an Edith belonging to this lady, who suffered with neuralgia." [W.]
" Somehow or another I think that lady sent a message. On the next
time I come to Mr. Piddington, I shall send you some messages if you'll
leave the purse with Mr. Piddington. She doesn't want you to believe it's
hsr till it's proved it's her."

[J. O. W. writes : " Would be a very characteristic view."]
" She wouldn't have thought she'd have been so heterodox. She's rather
orthodox."

[This is all characteristic]
" You'll believe that Mr. Piddington has written it down."

(Referring to message to be given at another seance to J. G. P. for
J. O. W.)

44 1 will send word what her name is before and after she's married."

[Miss Clegg was not married, nor does Nelly elsewhere suggest that
she was ; and here Nelly may have meant, " I'll tell you her maiden
name, and what her name would have been if she had married."]

Digitized by

126

J. 0. Wilson and J. 6. Piddington.

[part

"She wants to know if she convinces you. Will you make Bob
believe?"
J. G. P. "Who is Bob?"

Nelly. " Some one you have almost daily dealings with, and you wouldn't
think you could mention the subject to him, but you wilL" [W.] "You
understand how difficult it is ? She was a woman who disliked scent n [R]
" She didn't like the smell of scent on mother's handkerchief. She says it*
a silly proud custom, and thinks it barbaric." [Characteristic] "Do yoo
know there was some money in the Post Office belonging to this lady, and it
was a trouble to get it out" [R.] " She wants to know if you got it out ill
right Ask him, but she doesn't want an answer."

[In order to withdraw some money left by Miss Clegg at her death in
the Post Office Savings Bank, various troublesome formalities bad to
be complied with ; e.g. all the members of her family had to sign a
legal document before two witnesses.]
"An Eva or Eveline belonging to her. Eva is going to have an illnes.
It sounds like Eva." [W.] " You know netting, not knitting. This ladv
could net most beautifully." [W.] " She used to wear a drab- coloured coat
and skirt." [R.] "Give the purse to Mr. Piddington."

(1) Extract from Sitting held on February 1**, 1900 ; 4 p.m. ; at 87 Sloaue
Street. Mrs. Thompson, Medium. Present : J. G. Piddington, alone.

(After speaking of matters connected with Mrs. Benson, Nelly savs.
d propos de bottes) :

" Now I want to tell you about the varicose veins lady. This doesn't seem
the proper day for the purse. The cardcase isn't the only cardcase — the on*
he brought was wrong."

(Nelly then reverts to Mrs. Benson's belongings. Later, no reference t*>
Mr. J. O. Wilson having been made, she says) :

" What about Alice ? Alice was sister, or mother of the purse lady— an
Alice in the family."

[Had Miss Clegg's marriage not been prevented by her death, she
would have had an Alice for a sister-in-law, and this Alice had a special
interest in Mr. Wilson's sittings.]
" Whenever I see that lady I see her leg bleeding dreadfully. Her leg
was bleeding when she died, they couldn't stop it. Exhaustion, that's the
sort of thing."

[The leg may have bled internally, but did not externally, and Mis*
Clegg's death was due neither to exhaustion nor to injury of a leg.]
" When in the Express Dairy I nearly controlled mother then. Express
Dairy near the Marble Arch."

Trance ends 6.50.

Appendix.

J.G.P. "Why did you?"

xliv.] Record of Two Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 127

Nelly. " Because I wanted to be preparing her to tell you about all these
things."

[After trance Mrs. T. told J. G. P. that when in a tea-shop at the end
of Park Lane earlier in the day she had been nearly entranced. She
did not know the name of the shop.]
" The purse lady's name is Mrs. Gibson. No, not that. You know Dr.
Oillies, it's something like that."

[J. G. P. at this time did not know the real name of the dead lady,
who is called in this record " Miss Clegg," so he cannot have given any
indication of whether the names Gibson or Gillies were near or wide of
the mark.]

" Funny the way I get names. I get an association with flowers or trees
or places or all kind of things."

J. G. P. " How do you know when it's right ? "

Nelly. "There's a feeling of satisfaction when the right association is
found, which tells me it's right."

(While Nelly had been talking, J. G. P. had placed on the table the
purse which had been used at the sitting ou January 25th, 1900,)
"Can I feel inside the purse ?"
J. G. P. " Yes." (The purse was empty.)

Nelly. " You'd have smiled if you'd have seen the purse lady. She was
the sort of lady who wears elastic side boots." (Laughing.)

[The lady's style of dressing was not " smart," nor conventional : but
Nelly's statement must be taken in a highly metaphorical sense to have
any accordance with the truth.]
" Til go now, and try to meet them all."

(A short reference follows to a matter entirely unconnected with the
" lady of the purse," and then Mrs. T. comes out of trance at 4.40 p.m.
She does not fall into trance again until 6.15 p.m. The control is then
assumed chiefly by " Mrs. Cartwright," who, in the course of various
statements having no reference to Mr. J. O. Wilson, says, while Mrs. T.
is fingering the purse) :
"This seems to belong to an elderly person who is a young mother.
It's rather — well, well — somewhat peculiar designation for a person. It's
just what I feel when I touch it. Yes — um — Now, Nelly, you come.
I go."

(2) Extract from Sitting held on February 6/A, 1900 ; 3.30 p.ni.; at Mrs.
Thompson's house. Present : Mrs. Thompson and J. G. Piddington,
alone.

(Towards the end of the seance, which had been principally occupied with
communications for J. G. P., Nelly suddenly said) :
" Was Gillies right for the purse lady ?"
J. G. P. " I don't know."

Netty. " It's like this Marlow name {i.e. a name conned " ' " G. P.,
which Nelly had been making various attempts to r 'illies

Digitized by Google

128

J. 0. Wilson and J. G. Piddington. [part

suggests it, it isn't Gill. It's a short name like Gill or Gibbs." [The names
" Gill " and " Gibbs " (present as close a resemblance to the pseudonym
"Clegg" as to the lady's real name.]

(The purse is then handed to the medium.)

" This lady has a sister alive [R.], and she will die just the same way.'
[Not true, so far.]

J. G. P. "What way?"

Nelly. " Her leg was bleeding so, like internal exhaustion. Bessie is the
sister's name. I promised to tell that gentleman (i.e. J. O. W.) lots of
things, but somehow I can't say them now." [Bessie is not the sister's
name, but it was the name of the owner of some objects which had been
given to Mrs. T. earlier in the sitting, and was mentioned now for the firsi
time.]

Statement by J. 0. Wilson.

[This statement was originally written on March 16th, 1901, and revised
and enlarged September 28th, 1901.]

I have never met Mrs. Thompson before, between, or after the two
sittings of January 18th and January 25th, 1900; and on these occa-
sions we had the very slightest afternoon-tea conversations before she
went into a trance. I am very clear that she could have learnt nothing
about me from anything said in her presence by Mr. Piddington or
myself beyond the two details mentioned in the notes above that I
had sometimes made reports of sermons for newspapers and that 1
knew Mr. Myers. But Mr. Myers knew nothing of the circumstances
with which the sittings were concerned, beyond the bare fact of the
death of the lady who is here called Miss Clegg. With the general
outline of the circumstances it will be seen that Nelly showed no
acquaintance.

Absolutely no one except Mr. Piddington and myself knew when my
sittings with Mrs. Thompson were to be, though a sister of mine living
in the country, who had had previously some sittings with Mrs.
Thompson, had suggested my seeing her, and knew that a sitting was
to be arranged for me.1 The sister and brother with whom I am
living in London knew I was seeing something of Mr. Piddington,
but had no thought of my taking any personal interest in psychical
matters.

In connection with the possibility of Mrs. Thompson's having in her
own conscious person obtained the information given, one or two

1 Mrs. Thompson was unaware of the relationship between us, and has never
heard my name.

Digitized by

xuv.] Record of Two Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 129

further points may be noted at once : (1) As shown above, she could
scarcely have obtained this except through Mr. Piddington, and he
knew very little indeed of my personal life. We had then been
acquainted for a short time only; I doubt if we had actually met
as many as five times. He was not even at all accurately acquainted
with my reasons for wishing to have a sitting, being under the
impression that I had recently lost a wife and was left with several
children. Whereas I have never been married, but was engaged at
the time of her death to Miss Clegg, who was killed in a bicycle
accident in the summer of 1899, and with whom Nelly was supposed
to be in communication. Mr. Piddington had never heard this
lady's Christian or surname. (2) If, however, Mrs. Thompson had,
in her own person, obtained any knowledge of me, Nelly certainly
made no use of it. She gave no information about me and showed
scarcely any interest in me, but confined her remarks entirely to
Miss Clegg. The one fact mentioned about me — that a brother of
mine had died as a baby — is common to many people, and as it
occurred before I was born, is not likely to have been elicited by
ordinary investigation.

On the other hand, she gave the right Christian name for Miss Clegg,
and had no idea of mine. She gave a very close and correct indication
of where Miss Clegg lived, and showed no knowledge of my home.
Almost all the other persons correctly named were friends of Miss
Clegg's, and only associated with me through her.

Yet, on the supposition of fraud, Mrs. Thompson could only have
obtained information about Miss Clegg, of whom Mr. Piddington and
Mr. Myers knew nothing, through what she might have been able to
find out about me. Had she done so, it would have been almost
inevitable that she should endeavour to make her statements about the
dead more convincing by the parade of more startling knowledge of the
living. It would have been easy, and natural, to try to obtain my
confidence in the "communications" from Miss Clegg by making it
clear that she had experienced no difficulty in " discovering 11 me.

I have no desire whatever to bring forward these points as an
argument that the facts given by Mrs. Thompson are more likely to
have come from direct communication with a "spirit" than from
telepathic insight into my consciousness. There seems to me little or
nothing in these sittings that adds to the evidence for communication
from the dead, and indeed certain details, which I shall mention later,
tend rather to suggest that Mrs. Thompson's impressions were actually
guided by my thoughts and interests at the time of the sittings.

130 . J. 0. Wilson and J. 0. Piddington. [paw

I am here only concerned to bring out my general impression that
Mrs. Thompson's statements do not show any of the kind of knowledge
which might have been most naturally and easily obtained through in-
genious " fishing " or deliberate fraud. This consideration affords moth
stronger evidence in support of her " genuineness " than my saying that
she could not have found out this or that fact. I am led to the same
conclusion by noticing that while the information given about Miss
Clegg was largely concerned with intimate details particularly signifi-
cant to me, it left entirely untouched the striking manner of her death
and the most obvious facts about her everyday life. These must have
been the first discoveries of any fraudulent investigations, and Mrs.
Thompson could hardly have failed to make use of any such knowledge,
if only for the purpose of convincing me at once that Nelly was speaking
of the right lady. On the supposition that the information had been
obtained by fraud, it is sufficiently correct to prove that Mrs, Thompson
had rightly conjectured Miss Clegg's identity ; while it would have been
impossible for her to have found out (through ordinary channels) so
much without discovering more, and inconceivable that she shonH
not have used such information — to give me confidence.

It is now more than a year since these two sittings took place, but
the perfectly definite impressions produced on my mind by them are as
clear to day as they were then, and have been confirmed by three
recent examinations of Mr. Piddington's notes.

I have carefully gone over the notes again by myself, with Mr
Piddington, and with one of Miss Clegg's sisters. There is no doubt
about which of the statements made by Nelly are true and which are
false, and on this matter the authority of Miss Clegg's sister entirely
supports my own conclusions, while it enables me to be positive in the
few details about which I was uncertain. This lady did not see the
notes or know anything of the sittings until March, 1901. She no*
feels with me that the number and character of the facts correctly
stated are very remarkable.

The first impression I carried away from my sittings with Mrs.
Thompson was of her clear and unhesitating manner. She never
brought out the first syllable of a name under her breath in order to
feel her way towards its completion. Nearly every sentence was spoken
continuously, so that the fact or idea to be conveyed was seen to have
been in her mind before she began to speak, and was not in any way
"fished" for. I should say that on the whole she gave a stronger impres-
sion of definiteness, both in true and false statements, than can be con-
veyed by Mr. Piddington's literal and most exact report A series of

xliv.] Record of Two Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 131

detached statements may easily look more vague on paper than they
sound in conversation, and they may suggest (what would be quite
untrue of these instances) that more was said or done than is herein
reported. Mr. Piddington has clearly indicated the few occasions on
which he thought it wise to direct— or divert — Nelly's attention, or
-when he answered her questions ; and 1 am sure that he never did so
in any other case. He has also noted everything I did or said myself
-which could have influenced Mrs. Thompson, the fact being that
I scarcely spoke at all. There were several instances in which the
temptation was very strong to lead Nelly on by asking questions, or
suggesting that she should pursue a hint, but I saw that my doing so
-would largely destroy the evidential value of anything she might say,
And 1 rigidly maintained the silence which Mr. Piddington had enjoined
on me. He was himself so seldom aware at the time of whether
Nelly's statements were true or false that he could not have given her
much assistance.

Mrs. Thompson, both in her own person and when speaking for
Nelly, struck me as singularly sincere ; and while I have already noticed
the absence of the slightest attempt at "fishing" in her trance-talk, it
may be well to add further that when in a normal condition she made
no attempt whatever to " draw " me, directly or indirectly. She made
on me the impression of scarcely giving me any personal attention
except what was required by the ordinary courtesies of conversation,
talked very little at all, and for the most part on her own affairs. To
do this was to miss an obvious opportunity for fraud, if fraud were
designed, as any sitter in my circumstances would have been in a
somewhat strained mental condition and, if led into conversation of
any significance, whether personal or theoretic, would almost infallibly
have betrayed himself unconsciously. By practically leaving me alone,
Mrs. Thompson provided an undesigned and effective witness to her
sincerity. It seemed to me, again, perfectly obvious that she was
genuinely quite unaware of what Nelly had told us. On such a point
it is, of course, almost impossible to produce evidence, but the extreme
simplicity and easiness of Mrs. Thompson's transitions from trance to
wakefulness unquestionably produce a strong impression of absolute
truthfulness.

The information given was undoubtedly all familiar to Miss Clegg
during her life-time, except the remarkable statement about money in
the post-office. It was also known to a few other persons now living,
e.g. her mother and sisters. Most of it was immediately recognisable
as true or false by myself, but there are two facts which I did not

132

J. 0. Wilson and J. G. Piddington.

[PAW

consciously know at the time, and which I am not aware of haiing
ever known : namely, (1) that Miss Clegg had worked a cushion in
cross-stitch, which still existed ; and (2) that her father wore pincenez.
It is, of course, just possible that these facts had once been mentioned
to me, and that they had remained in my sub-conscious memory ; bat
I am fairly certain that I never knew the second fact, — that Mr. Clegg
used to wear pince-nez. He died before I ever met Miss Clegg or had
even heard her name, and it is not shown in the photographs of him
with which I am familiar.

The names and facts given were in the main particularly associated
with my own relationship towards Miss Clegg, though certainly not, in
every case, those I should first think of in connection with her. A
very intimate girl cousin named Dorothy, for instance, is mentioned,
who died before I knew the family ; but I am familiar with her picture,
and my brother is married to her (Dorothy's) sister. The Mar-
garet also mentioned is the third sister in Dorothy's family, and an
intimate friend of mine. The room which figures so conspicuously in
Nelly's visions is one which had only become Miss Clegg's since 1898,
and had earlier associations with quite other members of her family.
No events of her life before my knowledge of her are alluded to, and
no friends of her childhood, except her father and the Dorothy afore-
said.

Indeed much of the information dealt directly with matters on
which my mind had been busy during the months since her death. I
was living at that time at her mother's house, and using as my own the
room with " the funny bookcase " and the creaking chair. I had been
having a good deal of trouble about the small sum of money left in the
post-office at her death. The " girl in a blue dress," who was a younger
cousin (not in the same family as Margaret and Dorothy), was also
staying with Miss Clegg's mother at the time, and was always a great
favourite with me.

It is important to say in connection with "the girl in the blue
dress," that Mr. Piddington and myself are perfectly clear that
Nelly never confused her with Miss Clegg, to whom she referred
as "the lady," or "the lady with the stocking," etc. It is not
quite possible to convey this impression by a literal report of Nelly's
words, but we were never in any doubt as to which of the two she
was speaking of, and we could always see that she kept the tvro
clearly apart in her own mind. She was apparently aware of the
danger to be avoided, and once stated emphatically that the two
were not the same.

xliv.] Record of Two Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 133

I may add, perhaps, a few words about the articles belonging to Miss
Clegg, which were handed to Mrs. Thompson. The stocking had not
been washed since it was worn by Miss Clegg, though it had been put
away for the wash a few days before her death when she was in per-
fectly good health. I had myself carefully preserved it in this
condition with a view to possible sittings.

The purse had been constantly used by Miss Clegg, and was in her
pocket at the time of the accident from which she died.

The slip of paper was taken from a drawer in the book-case con-
taining diaries, account books, etc., and had written on it rough notes
of small expenditures.

The ring was Miss Clegg's engagement ring. As I have myself
always worn this since her death in addition to my own engagement ring,
it would have been easy for Mrs. Thompson to notice my having two,
and she might have observed that one of them looked like a lady's ring.
This might possibly have suggested to her that I had been engaged,
but not married.

Note by J. G. Piddington on three incorrect statements made by Nelly

(Sitting of January 18th, 1900.) "She wasn't a lady of great
jewelry, but had ear-rings like little bee-hives."

(Sitting of January 25th, 1900.) "It wasn't only her leg, but
varicose veins as well under her thigh/

" A peritonitis feeling about this letter. It's like Auntie A 's

peritonitis — that sort of pain — toothache in your inside." (See also the
note which precedes record of sitting of January 25th, 1900.)

The foregoing paper and record were read at a meeting of the Society
held on November 29th, 1901, at which Mrs. Thompson was present.
Assuming that Mrs. Thompson has no recollection of what she says
when in trance, this was her first opportunity of acquainting herself
with the subject matter of Mr. Wilson's sittings.

On November 30th, Mrs. Thompson wrote to me as follows :

Dear Mr. Piddington,

How Nelly does mix things ! My sister died eight years ago of peri-
tonitis. . . . She had a gold brooeh and ear-rings exactly as Nelly described,
and (with the aid of a magnifying glass) you will see in the enclosed photo,
the identical brooch and ear-rings. When a girl at home she suffered with
varicose veins, but I do not know if she had suffered in that way before her
death, as I did not see her for several years.

about Miss Clegg.

134

J. 0. Wilson and J. G. Piddington. [part

The ear-rings convinced me Nelly must mean uiy sister, as never before or
since have I seen any of that particular pattern. In the photograph the
little " bee-hive " does not show very well, but it was formed of a very fine
twisted gold wire.

Yours sincerely,

ROSALIK TflOMPSOX.

At an interview on December 3rd, 1901, Mrs. Thompson gave me
the following additional information, viz. :

Her sister, Mary Alethea Turner, died of peritonitis, in the month of
October, 1893, at Handsworth, eight or nine days after childbirth.
She possessed little jewelry, but had and often wore a brooch and ear-
rings, on each of which was a design, worked in twisted gold wire, re-
sembling a bee-hive, and she was in the habit of referring to these
ornaments as '* my bee-hives." Another sister, Annie Wade Middleton,
unmarried, also died of peritonitis at the age of twenty-two, on March
21st, 1894, five months after Mrs. Turner's death. Both sisters had
been attended by Dr. Foster, of Handsworth, both died in the same
house, and both were buried in the same grave in old Handsworth
churchyard.

Some of the facts here mentioned have no immediate bearing on the
three points in question, but Mrs. Thompson readily consented, at my
request, to give such details, in order to facilitate the verification of her
statements.

I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. Benjamin Davies, an Associate
of the Society, residing in Edgbaston, for a full and careful corrobora-
tion of such of Mrs. Thompson's written and verbal statements as
relate to the illnesses and deaths of her sisters. In the certificate of
death of Mrs. Turner, of which Mr. Davies has sent me a duly certified
copy, the cause of death is given as "Childbirth, 13 days, Phlebitis, 7
days, Peritonitis, 3 days."

In the certificate of death of Miss Annie Wade Middleton (of which
I have also received a certified copy) the cause of death is given as
" Peritonitis. Haematemisis." With regard to the varicose veins, Mr.
B. Davies writes :

Finding that this disease was not mentioned in either of the certificates of
death, I went to interview the doctor who attended the sisters, viz., Dr.
Foster, of Hall Road, Handsworth. Dr. Foster, being himself a student of
psychical phenomena, took a particular interest in the inquiry directly I
mentioned the purpose of my visit, and very kindly offered all possible
assistance.

Dr. Foster, speaking from memory, was quite certain concerning the
varicose veins, saying that they certainly did not exist in either case. Dr.

Digitized by

xxiv.] Record of Two Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 135

Foster is of opinion, however, that the phlebitis in Mrs. Turner's case
might quite easily have led the medium to describe the disease as " vari-
cose veins."

On December 5th, 1901, I received the following letter from Mrs.
Thompson, who had written to her sister, Mrs. Rudge, with reference
to the varicose veins :

December 4th, 1901.

Enclosed you will find my sister Harriet's letter (Mrs. Rudge's) in reply to
uiy question if she knew anything of Pollie's (Mrs. Turner's) varicose veins.
I also asked Mrs. Rudge if she knew where the " bee-hive brooch and ear-
rings" were, and also if Mrs. Turner had any other ear-rings.

You will find a full reply to my questions.

I can honestly state I never knew of the " thigh veins," or of any at all
after my sister's (Mrs. Turner's) marriage. ... I have cut away from my
sister's letter the part not bearing upon the subject.

Mrs. Rudge's letter was as follows :

51 C— Road, R— Park, Dec. 4, 1901.

My dear Rosa,

I fear I shall not be able to give you very much information, for my
memory is, and always was, so bad. I never seemed at home much with
Pollie [i.e. Mrs. Turner], and so never heard her say anything about veins in
her single days. But after marriage she had them, and on the inside of her

thigh, I know, just before G was born, she suffered a good deal with

them. . . .

Now as regards brooch and ear-rings, I do not know for certain, but I

believe A has them. I believe some one said they saw her with them

on — feel almost sure. I never knew her with any others except plain ones,
those you wear first when the ears are pierced. . . .

Your affectionate Sister,

Harriett.

It appears then that Mrs. Rudge does not corroborate, though she
does not contradict, Mrs. Thompson's recollection that Mrs. Turner
suffered from varicose veins before her marriage. Mrs. Rudge admits
that her memoiy is not very clear, and her statement that Mrs. Turner
had varicose veins after marriage must not be taken as conclusive, for
it is plain that her one definite recollection is of Mrs. Turner's condition
shortly before the birth of her child, when the symptoms were perhaps
not due to varicose veins but to phlebitis. But I see no reason for
doubting Mrs. Thompson's statement that her sister, Mrs. Turner,
did suffer from varicose veins, as this complaint, she tells me, is common
to other members of her family, and some support is independently
afforded to her statement by the fact that persons who suffer from

Digitized by

136

J. 0. Wilson and J. 6. Piddington. [pajtt

varicose veins are somewhat more liable to phlebitis than the generality

I have examined, under a magnifying glass, the two photographs of
Mrs. Turner, in one of which she is shown wearing the brooch and ear-
rings, and in the other the brooch only. I cannot categorically state
that the ornamentation does represent a bee-hive, but it certainly re-
sembles one closely. A jeweller to whom I submitted the photographs
is of the 8am e opinion, and was quite certain that the design was, as
Mrs. Thompson stated, worked in gold wire.

In face of this fresh evidence, I think it cannot reasonably be doubted
that the three statements (bee-hive ear-rings, varicose veins, and peri-
tonitis) wrongly given by Mrs. Thompson in trance in connection with
Miss Clegg, owe their origin to reminiscences of Mrs. Thompson's dead
sister, Mrs. Turner, which " Nelly " got hold of, but used in a wrong
relation. But because the source of Nelly's information has thus been
traced, the problem presented is none the less puzzling, — indeed, if
anything, the puzzle is all the greater.

I fail to see how any hypothesis involving conscious fraud on Mrs.
Thompson's part can provide a solution.

If we regard Nelly as merely a secondary personality and invoke
telepathy from some living mind as an explanation, we must assume
that this secondary consciousness, while cognisant of the personality
of the sister Annie and of the fact that this sister suffered from
peritonitis, can only discover certain definite facts which would have
been true of the other sister, Mrs. Turner, but cannot assign
these facts to the right person, although that person is the
medium's own sister; and moreover associates them wrongly with
another person, between whom and Mrs. Turner there is no connec-
tion whatever.

If, however, Nelly is the spirit of Mrs. Thompson's daughter, then, —
unless her powers of communication happen to have been obstructed at
this particular point by some fortuitous defect in the " machine," — we
must assume that her knowledge is limited in a curious manner: —
that she knows her Aunt Annie, but does not know her aunt Mrs,
Turner, nor recognise her when she sees her, although the two photo-
graphs which I have seen show that a strong family likeness existed
between Nelly's mother, Mrs. Thompson, and Mrs. Turner. But some
light is perhaps thrown on this point by information furnished me by
Mrs. Thompson in a letter dated December 23rd, 1901, in which she
states that whereas "Aunt Annie" was a constant visitor at her
-mse and often helped to attend Nelly during her illness, Mrs. Turner

of people.

xliv.] Record of Two Sittings with Mrs. Thompson. 137

never saw Nelly, and there had been but rare intercourse between herself
and Mrs. Turner for some years before the tatter's death.

On December 3rd, 1901, 1 went carefully through the record of Mr.
Wilson's sittings with Mrs. Thompson, but she did not discover any
other references which could be applied correctly to her sister, Mrs.
Turner.

In conclusion, I may remark that there was and is no connection of
any kind between Miss Clegg or Mr. Wilson and Mrs. Thompson or
her sisters or family.

138

Dr. Richard Hodgson.

[past

REPORT ON SIX SITTINGS WITH MRS. THOMPSON.
By Richard Hodgson, LL.D.

I attended six sittings with Mrs. Thompson in July and August,
1900, and quote here the detailed records of these, so far as they
concern myself or the lady present at the first two sittings.
Pseudonyms have been substituted for the real names in the case
of this lady and the most important incidents connected with her.
The portions omitted concern Mr. Myers, or other previous sitters, and
I learned from Mr. Myers after the series of sittings was over that none
of these references to other matters could be regarded as having
any evidential value. Mrs. Thompson knew who I was, and I had
interchanged a few words with her on at least two previous occasions.

So far as I know, the lady, Mrs. Barker, was unknown to Mrs.
Thompson, and was scarcely known to Mr. Myers. I knew little about
her life and friends myself. She had visited America for the purpose of
having some sittings with Mrs. Piper, and was so anxious to receive
communications from her deceased husband that I arranged with Mr.
Myers for a trial with Mrs. Thompson.

It will, I think, be clear on perusal of the detailed records that
the statements made by Mrs. Thompson concerning myself and mj
relatives or friends do not — considering the opportunities which she has
had for obtaining information about me—suggest even prima facie any
proof of supernormal power, and they need no special comment.

The statements relating to Mrs. Barker, however, notwithstanding
the many that were incorrect, do include such correct or partially correct
specific statements that the first conclusion suggesting itself to most
readers would probably be either that some supernormal power was
manifested, or that Mrs. Thompson, or her trance-personality, had
obtained information surreptitiously.

I may say here at once that the view which the consideration
these six sittings inclined me to take is that Mrs. Thompson exhibited
no supernormal power at all during their occurrence, and that she wis

xuv.] Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

139

in a normal state the whole time. Mrs. Barker, at the time of her
sittings, independently reached and still holds the same conclusion as
myself. In the detailed records, of course, I made notes under the
headings of 44 trance," etc., in accordance with what the manifestations
purported to be, and the reader can form his own judgment of the
apparently incriminating circumstances from the notes appended to
the sittings in connection with some further comments and analysis
which I give here on some of the most important statements concerning
Mrs. Barker. My own view of the methods which I suppose were
adopted by Mrs. Thompson in acquiring and using information con-
cerning the sitter will be sufficiently indicated by the few following
points:

(1) From the preliminary conversation at Sitting I. Mrs. Thompson
obtained the information that " three years ago or so " the sitter was
desirous of having sittings. At beginning of Sitting II. Mrs. Thompson
says : 44 Things are so difficult after three or four years."

(2) Mrs. Thompson guesses (wrong) that a cap has been brought, and
on the production of the spectacle case guesses (wrong) that it belonged
to the sitter's father.

(3) Mrs. Barker and myself leave the room, and Mr. Myers remains.
After a short time Mr. Myers left the room to call Mrs. Barker.

I should explain here that the sittings were held in what I may
call Room 2 of the S.P.R. Rooms at 19 Buckingham Street, to dis-
tinguish it from Room 1, the Library Room, usually occupied by
Mr. Bennett. The sitter and myself on this occasion, after leaving Mr.
Myers with Mrs. Thompson, went into the general hall space outside
the rooms of the S.P.R. altogether.

I suppose that during Mr. Myers' absence Mrs. Thompson looked
into Mrs. Barker's opened parcel, and read the address or part of the
address on at least one of the envelopes lying there, and thus obtained
the name 44 Miss Dorothy Gibson."

(4) Mrs. Thompson gives the name Dorothy for the sitter, who
acknowledges it, and then guesses (wrong) that the sitter wishes to
hear from her mother. See (2). Mrs. Thompson then guesses (partially
right) 44 man, his hand used to shake,7' and (wrong) that he was 44 ill a
long time." Mrs. Thompson now knows definitely from her several
guesses and from Mrs. Barker's treatment of them that the desired
communicator is not the sitter's father or mother, and is a man, and
she guesses (wrong) that the desired communicator was named Gibson
(probably a guess at the sitter's brother).

(5) I return, and Mrs. Thompson expressly refers to the sitter as

140

Dr. Richard Hodgson.

[part

" Miss Gibson." She was, however, married nearly eight years before,
and the letters taken to the sitting had been written to her before
her marriage.

(6) Mrs. Thompson indirectly asks for letters, and, as letters are
being given to her, asks that they should be wrapped up, as though to
suggest that the furthest thing possible from her mind was the thought
of reading anything on the envelopes. The sitter wrapped them so
thoroughly that it would have been at least difficult for Mrs. Thompson
to look inside the envelopes without drawing the special attention of
the sitter to her manipulation of the package. After a short interval
Mrs. Thompson requested me to arrange the letters so that her
fingers could touch the writing. This, of course, in itself was a
reasonable request, but it also gave opportunities for Mrs. Thompson
to look in the envelopes or even to take the letters out, as she took
up such a position that the articles she handled both at this and
at later sittings were concealed from my view by the desk. The
notes of the sittings are inadequate as regards the articles handled by
Mrs. Thompson later on; I believe that on the resumption of the
trance the articles used before were again given to Mrs. Thompson.
When Mrs. Barker was alone with Mrs. Thompson she took my position
at the desk to make notes. It is perhaps immaterial just exactly
when Mrs. Thompson may have looked into the envelopes. My
impression at the time of the sittings was that she probably took
the opportunity after my leaving the room in the second part of the
sitting. In any case I suppose that Mrs. Thompson did look inside
the envelopes and read the following passages :

"I shall not forget the waiting-room at Altringham for a long
time."

"Your Sodjer, Harold," and other words suggesting an accepted
proposal.

"I am glad you did not come up to town with us yesterday. I
drove to Waterloo, and had to take my uniform case."

" P.S. The girls sent a letter to me the other day in a parcel from
home, addressed H. R. Guthrie, Esq. ! ! ! "

As I found by personal inspection, these passages could be easily
read without removing the letters from their envelopes. The signa-
ture at the end of one of the letters, which might also have been
similarly read, was an H. B. joined together.

(7) The relation between the above passages and various statements
made later by Mrs. Thompson indicate very strongly that she was
drawing inferences and guessing — making also some interesting mistakes

XLIV.]

Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

141

— on the basis of the information acquired from looking inside the
letters.

" You wished him good-bye when he was going on a boat — he went
on a boat."

" He wants to know what his sisters — the two girls — are doing."
" Poor Harold is dead now."

"This dead Harold was a soldier." (S. "Was he?") "You have
seen him in uniform ; why do you say ' was he ' t " (S. " Ask him to
tell me some more about his being a soldier.")

The remarks here of the sitter apparently suggested to Mrs. Thompson
that perhaps the references to "sodger" and "uniform," which she had
read in the letter, might not after all mean that the person concerned
was a soldier. Accordingly, in the next sitting (July 31), she says,
4 4 That was no soldier," and in the fifth sitting (August 13) she apparently
guesses that the uniform was connected with a yacht. Later on again,
in the sixth sitting (August 14), she goes back to the "soldier."

But perhaps the most important passages bearing on the question of
whether the letters were read or not are the following :

" He wants to know if you remember the romantic place where he
proposed to you." (S. " Ask him where it was.") " He says it was
in the station waiting room you promised to be Mrs. Guthrie."
*" No one else proposed to you at Altringham in the waiting-room."

It seems fairly clear from these that Mrs. Thompson inferred from
the statements read in the letters that the name of the communicator
•desired was Guthrie, and that he had proposed at a station waiting-
room ; not unreasonable inferences for a normal intelligence who had
read the passages quoted above from the letters and was otherwise
unaware of the facts of the case, — but nevertheless wrong. (See the
notes appended to the record of the first sitting, p. 148.)

(8) At the next sitting a handkerchief was presented with the name
Barker on it, and the only new information of special significance
given in connection with this sitting was the name Barker.

(9) I need not lengthen this introduction by entering into further
•details concerning obvious inferences and guesses and mistakes. For
^example, at the end of the first sitting :

(S. "Ask him one more thing. Does he really mean that he
proposed in a real waiting-room?")

"No, no. He says you promised him in the waiting-room."

The point of the sitter's question was missed, as was plain from
the answer then, and also from the statement at the sixth sitting
.(August 14).

Digitized by

142

Dr. Ricltard Hodgson.

[part

" It was at the station when she said, Yes, I will."

It was really at a " dining room " of Mrs. Barker's then residence
where the proposal was made and accepted.

(10) On the other hand there was not the slightest perception at the
first sitting, on the part of Mrs. Thompson, that Mrs. Barker was a
married lady. Mrs. Barker was dressed in ordinary mourning, not in
widow's weeds, and was very young-looking. She was nevertheless
wearing a specially heavy wedding-ring, and I suppose that Mrs.
Thompson regarded this as a deceptive ruse. It was not till Sitting IV.
that any explicit mention was made of Mrs. Barker as a married lady;
and I feel bound to say that in preliminary conversation with Mrs.
Thompson, at the beginning of this Sitting IV., the lady was, in a
moment of forgetfulness, spoken of as " Mrs. Barker." In that sitting
later came the words "Dorothy, my wife." That Mrs. Thompson
herself was aware of the inferences concerning lack of supernormal
power that might be drawn from her previous references to "Miss
Gibson" is indicated by her apparent attempt, in Sitting VI., to
explain such references.

" I always call that lady Miss Something. I always call her Miss
Gibson, because you see the old Grandma Gibson always speaks of her
like that I say the old, because she was grandma, — she wasn't old
when she came to us. You know that old lady; she's so interested
in a soldier, a man in uniform, and she wants to take care of him for
some one else."

Upon which Mrs. Barker's comment is : " My father's mother died, I
believe, before my birth."

I should add that the letters taken by Mrs. Barker were not taken
with any thought of deceiving Mrs. Thompson, either by the contents
of the letters or the addresses on the envelopes.

My conclusion is that the order of the events, the relative sequence of
the knowledge exhibited by Mrs. Thompson, and the erroneous inferences
from the written words on or in the envelopes, all combine to show that
Mrs. Thompson read the words in question by normal vision. As the
order of opportunity arose for becoming possessed of the information
by ordinary means, Mrs. Thompson obtained it (first, the names on
the envelopes ; next, such contents of the letters as might be easily
read ; last, the name on the handkerchief) — and not till then.

The question then arises whether Mrs. Thompson in her normal
state acquired the information in question surreptitiously, or whether
she was dominated by a secondary personality to whom the surrepti-
tious procedures are to be attributed. There may be some who will

XL1V.]

Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

143

adopt this latter view. For myself, I saw no reason to suppose, in the
whole course of my six sittings, that Mrs. Thompson was at any time
in any " trance " state of any sort whatever.

The records are nearly verbatim, except for the passages excluded
as having no reference to Mrs. Barker or myself. These are indi
cated by three asterisks. Two asterisks indicate the omission of a few
words that were not caught or recorded at the time they were spoken,
and I believe that these were unimportant. Dots . . . indicate pauses
or breaks in the utterances of Mrs. Thompson ; they do not indicate
omission of any words spoken by her. Most of the commentary notes
were made either immediately after the sittings or within a few days.
Additional notes were made in February, 1902, in further consultation
with Mrs. Barker, and these are preceded by the letter A. Mrs. Barker
was alive to the importance of recording as fully as possible, and
especially of writing down exactly whatever she herself said. In one or
two cases, when it was impossible to give the exact words, I gave the
substance of the remark or remarks in square brackets. Comments
made after the sittings are also in square brackets, and the remarks of
the sitters at the sitting are in round brackets.

DETAILED RECORDS OF SITTINGS.
Sitting I. July 23rd, 1900.

At 19 Buckingham Street, Strand, W.C. Present : F. W. H. Myers, R
Hodgson, Mrs. Barker (called S. below), and Mrs. Thompson.

[IL H. notes.'] [During preliminary conversation M. asks if Mrs. T. has
had any experience. 3.25 p.m. * * * Talk about Miss A., and S. says she
has been promised a sitting with Miss A. through a friend . . . in reply to
question from M. as to circumstances. S. said it was three years ago or so.
3.47 p.m. Trance coming on. 3.48. . . . Trance?]

" * * If lady has brought a cap or something." [No cap brought]

(M. " Is that Mrs. Cartwright ? ") " Yes." [Mrs. C. asks for pencil.]

(M. to & " Give something. ") [S. gives spectacle case and silk wrap. R. H.
gives pencil and block-book, which Mrs. C. takes in lap. Writes : ]

" Where are your father's glasses ? I do not know why these should be
here * * * " [Writing ends].

[Pause.] "I must see what Bates wants to do with it." [Not specific
enough to determine. A. Persons named Bates known to S. and her
husband.] [Here control suggests that S. and R H. should go out, leaving
" Mr. Myers alone." S. and R. H. go out.]

[Myers notes. Mrs. T. wakes and complains of feeling muddled. Thinks
she is going to be ill. Saw herself in the spirit-world looking ill. Saw her
Mother, who said she was ill in that world.]

144

Dr. Richard Hodgson.

[part

" I believe I have been haunted by Stain ton Moses. Last Saturday he
came. He said * How many more of you are going to try me?' I felt as I
feel when other mediums are there. I said, * I don't want to have anything
to do with you until you tell me those names.' "

[Contemporary note by R. If. Here M. left the room to call S., and mean-
while a parcel of articles brought by S. remained partially opened on the
table. S. returns without M.]

[S. notes.] "I have been wanting to speak with you ! Who calls you
Dorothy?" (S. " That is my name.")

" Mother calls you Dorothy." [True if applied to my own Mother.]

" Yes. . . . Yes. . . . Yes. . . . This belongs to a man — his hand used to
shake." [True in his last illness. A. A habit in his illness was to hold up
his left hand and look at it, and in this position it would shake through
weakness.]

(S. " I think it did. Tell me about him.")
" He was ill a long time — some months." [About three weeks.]
(S. " Is he with you now ? I want to talk to him.")
" He won't be able to come. He makes you write. He says you have his
ring."

(S. " Yes. Will you tell him I am anxious for a message.")
" He sends his love. Why is he so sad ? "

(S. " Ask him to tell me who he is, so that I may know if he is really
there.")

u Gibson." [Maiden name of sitter.] "... Gubson. He is not afraid of
Hodgson — he tried to communicate with you before" [true] "he gave you
several things" [true] "he can come in." (S. "To take notes?") "Yes."
[S. calls E. H.]

[R. H. notes. R. H. returns. 4.12.]

"Nollie [f] doesn't mind. She doesn't mind. Why does Miss Gibson
come with you ? Why does she come with you ? "
(R. If. " Oh, because I help her with her friends.")

" You know she's like you, you know, Mr. Hodgson, she wants tests, tests,
tests." (R. H. "Yes.")

" What's . . . when I ask a question don't answer it. * * "

" Mother's head seems very bad." [?] (R. H. " Yes.")

[Holding up spectacle case and silk wrap.] " This dear man, his hand
shakes. . . . What's the matter with that woman and child, so ill when you
were coming over ?" (R. H. " Oh, I don't know that.") [A. S. recalls that
during the passage from Boston to Liverpool the doctor of the ship men-
tioned at table that a baby had been born in the steerage. K. H. has a
vague recollection of this. S. and R. H. came over in the same ship.]

(S. "Will you ask that gentleman to give you some more messages, please?")
# #

" Well, I've communicated before, but where are the pictures ? "
(S. " What sort of pictures ? ")

" It was the sheep." [?] (S. " The sheep ? ") " Yes."

XLIV.]

Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

145

[I brought some photos in a parcel, not opened, amongst which was one of
a pony which I have some very vague recollection that we called, among
other names, the sheep. A. The pony's name was Daniel or Dan, or a
Hindustani modification of this. Owing to its habits, it was sometimes
spoken of as a cow or a sheep. The query after sheep was absolutely con-
temporary, and the present impression of R. H. is that he understood ship.]

" He says you've got heaps of letters of his, — heaps of letters, have you,
Dr. Hodgson?"

[S. brings two letters. R. H. is about to give them to Mrs. T.]
" Wrap them up, wrap them up." [R. H. gives to S., who wraps much
tissue paper round them and hands them to Mrs. T.]

" He asks her to stitch his book, stitch it up, yes, stitch it up." [Unintel-
ligible.]

[Control asks R H. to arrange letters so that finger can touch writing.
R. H. takes and arranges and returns.]

" Not a very great letter writer. [True.] You ought to be very glad of
them. What's Corrie doing now. . . . What's Corrie. . . . He wants both
Ellen and Corrie. Yes. Bobbie's dead." [These names as given not signi-
ficant. A. Robert was one of the names of husband of S., also of his cousin
(usually called Bob), both dead ; but S. does not know whether latter was
dead at time of sitting or not]

[Pause.] " George. He can't come here." (B. H. " Who ? ")

" George. He can't come here. He's afraid of all these strange places."

" Dr. Hodgson. You ought to make that lady write. She can." (R. H.
"Oh, she can?")

" Yes. You ought to insist upon it. George says so." [Possible reference
toG. P.]

" There comes a little boy too with this [silk wrap], a little boy too." [A
possible reference to my child, but of no importance. A. Not used by child.
S. is uncertain whether her child was a boy or a girl, although the doctor
said it was a girl.]

" What's he doing with all those bottles ... all those bottles ? ... He
seems to be doing something with those bottles." [Allusion significant]

" Where's the baby — the baby ? . . . I want the baby. Poor Mr. Myers.
Is he neglected ? Does he want to go ? Let him go. I'm not afraid."

(S. " He doesn't want to go. He wants to wait")

" He doesn't help with that baby. Does Kitty know all about it now ?
You ought to tell Kitty about it * * All one thing after another." [Kitty,
an intimate friend, made since my husband's death, to whom I have talked
freely on this subject]

u Hark at those wretched war . . . shootings «, A . wretched things. He
went to Montril [?] too. Yes, he went to Moi^^^K.It waujge and cool
when he went. [Unknown.] Yes, and his penJf lttOl^^^V haven't

brought me his pen. His pen in a case too, ym
with." [He always wrote with an ordin
to one of his nurses who asked for a ke

146

Dr. Richard Hodgson.

[PAKT

" Yes, he knew Henry James, you know — the brother of our James, yoo
know . . ." (R. If. "Yes") ; "he knew him." [Not true so far as I know.]

" Yes, big ships ; such big ships ; . . . yes, if he goes on that big ship yon
won't see him again. Don't let him get on. Dr. Hodgson, don't let him get
on. Bad . . . very bad. I'm going to clear it all up and come back in a
minute or two.5' (/?. H. u Very good.") * * *

" Dr. Hodgson, without giving any suggestion, can you tell me what 1
shall ask him for ? "

(R. H. " You might ask him of his own accord to tell you anything at all
that will impress this lady. Leave it to him, or judge yourself.")

[4.32 1 /2. Trance stops. M. comes in. Tea. In the interim conversation,
S. referred to the remarks I addressed to her when we first met each other,
and I mentioned her coming to Boston.]

[4.47 1/2. Trance again. R. H. alone notes.]

" Yes. James is better now. Professor James is better."

(R. H. " I'm glad to hear it") [Pause.]

(R. If. "Shall I call the lady in ?")

" Yes. I've been talking with that man about her. What did be say ?
. . . Yes, he wouldn't mind writing through her hand. He was very pleased
about her . . . she's wearing a ring of his . . . isn't any stone in, but that
doesn't matter. It was his. It was one Sunday it came into her possession."

[True about the ring which I was wearing. My husband died on a
Sunday. A. It was a crested signet ring and plainly a man's ring.]

" Do all the mediums hold this [silk wrap ?]"

(R. H. "Oh, I don't know.")

" It's more than the man's own." [Not sure.]

(R. H. " Yes, I understand.'5) [I think I understood this to mean that
there were more " influences " than one about the article. — R. H.]
(R. H. " Shall I call the lady ? ') " Yes, yes, yes."
[R. H. calls S., who comes in.]

" Where's his watch ? Dr. Hodgson, you've got his watch. [S. begins to
take her watch off.] . . . Not this one " [i.e. not R. H.'s watch, which was on
the table. S. nods her head affirmatively, and gives the watch she was
wearing. S. thinks that Mrs. C. here remarked " the half hunter." R. H.
goes out S. notes.] [A. S. was wearing her husband's watch, which was
neither a whole nor a half hunter, in her waistband, and it was usually
partly visible, and was obviously a man's watch.]

" Has Hodgson gone ? His chain is one of those thick heavy ones [not
specially heavy], and . . . He ought not to have worn glasses — not an old
man — he could not see very well." [True.]

" Yes, will — no, tell me, why did he use a crest ?— not a man of title [true].
Why should he use a crest ? "

(S. " Ask him why he did.")

Mrs. C. " He said he had a right to. Yes. . . . You wished him good-bye
when he was going on a boat — he went on a boat [true]. He wants to know
if you are happy now." (S. " Not very.")

XL1V.]

Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

147

" He doesn't like you to be unhappy, don't be."

[Piece of lining had been presented some time before.]

" Is that cut from his old coat 1 " (S. " Yes.") " It was his old favourite."
[The coat he wore when he was married.]

(S. " Ask him if he remembers anything about that coat.")

" Yes. Is it at your house now ? The old coat. It was at your home."

(S. " He used to call that coat by a special name for a special reason.")

" He always had that on— -a sort of cuddle coat. He always had it on.
[Wrong.] Herbert and Harry know it." [Harry has some relevance, but
Herbert not. A. The significance of Harry is that a Henry was closely
associated with the wedding.] " You must not be unhappy, etc. He wants
to know what his sisters— the two girls — are doing."

[He was interested in his three sisters. A. One of these was married
before his death. During his lifetime he was anxious about the other two,
as he was one of their trustees, and their money affairs were in a somewhat
unsatisfactory state. He had wished that they should marry or take up
some definite career. But since his death the second one had married and
the third had become a successful hospital nurse.]

(S. " Shall I tell you, Mrs. C. ? ")

"No, but he wants to know . . . he . . . what they are doing ... is
unhappy about them. He said the coat was in England, made in England."
[True.]

(S. "Yes, I think it was.")

"Yes, poor Harold is dead now. Do you grieve for Harold ?" [The first
name of my husband.] (S. " Yes.")

"Yes, yes, you do. That is the feeling of being . . . seems to be in a
foreign country in the coldest of weather ; he doesn't mind the cold. [We
were in parts of India where there was extremely cold weather. A. During
part of the year, but at other times it was very warm. It was warm
weather when husband of S. died.] This dead Harold was a soldier."
[True.] (S. "Was he?")

" You have seen him in uniform ; why do you say t was he ' ? "
(S. " Ask him to tell me some more about his being a soldier.")
" Yes." [Makes excuses for being long in getting things.]
"He had a great difficulty in telling you his surname when he came."
[True.]

" He wants to know if you remember the romantic place where he pro-
posed to you."

(S. " Ask him where it was.")

" He says it was in the station waiting-room [in a room which we called
the waiting-room] you promised to be Mrs. Guthrie. [Name wrong.]
What does he know ? He wants to know. He was in a foreign country
when he died." (S. "Yes.")

" He says. Put the things away. . . . He don't want his things shown to
Hodgson."

[S. gives envelope containing hair.]

148

Dr. Richard Hodgson.

[part

" Why haven't you got it in your locket ? You have some in your locket ;
put it in. [True about hair and locket A. At the time of making the
preceding note S. did not grasp the significance of what Mrs. T. said. It
now seems clear that Mrs. T. intended to advise her to put the hair from
the envelope into her locket She was wearing a locket at the time, though
it was not visible, which already contained her husband's hair.] He said-
Dorothy, you were my own after all. What does he mean 1 n (S. "I
understand.")

" What are those brutal Spaniards up to now ? [No relevance.] He low
you to wear his watch."

(S. " Please tell him that I want to talk to him, but that Mr. Myers do*,
not wish it That is why I don't say much. Tell him that in case he thinks
me unkind. We want him to prove his identity first")

" No one else proposed to you at Altringham in the waiting-room." (S.
"No, no one did.")

[Remark made by Mrs. C. that she must go.]

(S. " Ask him one more thing. Does he really mean that he proposed in
a real waiting-room ? ") " No, no. He says you promised him in the waiting-
room. Let him come again. I must go. Let . . . Inside he* had some-
thing internal. Yes, he looks so well, and yet there was something interna!/
[A. He died of typhoid fever, during which he looked very ill.]

(S. " What was it ? ") " He was torn internally in some way. Yes, that i*
the truth, dear." [Vague, but relevant]

" Yes, you must come and talk with him again."

(S. " Shall I call Mr. Myers ?")

[Trance ends about 5.10 p.m.]

Note by H. H.

The comments in square brackets concerning the significance or otherwi*
of the statements at the sitting were made immediately after Mrs. Thompson1*
departure shortly after the trance ended. The comments were made by &
in conjunction with F. W. H. M., and R. H. The significance of the aUusioo
to bottles was not told to R. H, who left the room while S. explained it to M.
While we were commenting on the sitting, S. drew attention to the fact that
some of the names mentioned by the control were on the envelopes which
she had been holding, and S. then inspected the letters themselves and found
that the other most specific references made by the control were also in close
relation to words in the letters. We thought it advisable that a special state-
ment on these and connected points should be made in a final note.

In the opened parcel left in the room with the medium alone, when M.
went out to call S., were two letters, one of which was addressed Miss D.
Gibson, the other to Miss Dorothy Gibson. The names Dorothy and Gibson
were mentioned by the control in the next section of the sitting, when S.
was alone with medium.

The unopened parcel of photos was visible on a chair in the corner of th*
room.

XLIV.]

Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

149

After S. had been alone with medium for a short time, B. H. was called in,
and during this section of the sitting the control asked for letters, and the
arrangement of these by B. H., at request of control, so that the fingers
might be inserted, also made it possible for the writing to be read to some
extent by normal means without withdrawing the letters from the envelopes.
Later inspection showed that among the words and passages which might be
read without such withdrawal were :

" I shall not forget the waiting-room at Altringham for a long time."

" Your Sodjer, Harold," and other words suggesting an accepted proposal.

" I am glad you did not come up to town with me yesterday. I drove to
Waterloo and had to take my uniform case."

" P.S. — The girls sent a letter to me the other day in a parcel from home,
addressed H. B. Guthrie, Esq. ! ! ! "

It is clear that the most important correct statements made by the control
could have been suggested by the above-mentioned contents of the envelopes.
There were also mistakes in connection with some of these points that sug-
gest erroneous inferences from a knowledge of these contents.

The name of the communicator was apparently offered as Gibson (not
true). The name of S. is not now "Miss Gibson." Guthrie is the third
Christian name of husband of S., and not his surname. He proposed to S.
in a dining-room which they called "the waiting-room," but the words in
the letter about " the waiting-room at Altringham " referred to a good-bye
actually spoken in the station waiting-room.

The preceding note was drawn up by me on July 26th from memoranda
made in conjunction with S. immediately after the sitting. I forwarded it
to S. for consideration, and have now received it back with one or two
further explanations from her, in consequence of which I have made some
slight changes. The above is the revised form.

Mrs. B. also writes in a letter received by me July 30th, 1900 : " Also in
the letters my husband said nothing about not being a good letter writer.
I said it might be inferred he was not from short sentences, etc. As a
matter of fact, he wrote very good amusing letters to people he knew
well, and especially, of course, to me, but disliked writing duty letters
extremely."

[At 19 Buckingham Street.] Present : F. W. H. Myers, B. Hodgson, Mrs.
Barker, and Mrs. Thompson.

[R. H. notes. Mrs. T. arrives 10.30 a.m. Mrs. T. said she was in trance
last night between 11 and 12 p.m. S. arrives 10.45 a.m., and goes with
R. H. into Bennett's room with M. B. H. closes door, but almost imme-
diately opens it, and goes to other room. * * * S. enters room with M. at
10.55 a.m. 11.2. Trance?]

July 30th, 1900.

B. H.

Sitting II. July 31st, 1900.

150

Dr. Richard Hodgson.

[part

"Have you brought anything, Mr. Myers?" (J/1 "Is that Mrs. Cart-
wright?") "Yes." * * *
[S. gives a shoe and handkerchief. Pause.]

" Things are so difficult after three or four years." [Husband of S. died
nearly four years ago.] * * *
"That was no soldier." [Holding up handkerchief.] (M. "Who was no

soldier?")

" No, that was no soldier." (J/1 " That handkerchief you mean ? ") 44 Yes.
A man in civilian dress. Yen, he wanted some water." (J/1 " This man to
whom the handkerchief belonged f ")

"Yes."

(J/1 " Is it the same as the shoe man ? ")
"I don't know."

( M. " He wanted water, you mean when he was ill ? ")
" Yes, he asked some one to give him some water."
[A similar statement made through Mrs. Piper, but is unverified.]
" Where's the piece of his wedding coat ; the little piece of hia weddinc
coat?"

[S. leaves room and returns with piece of cloth.]

[A control of Mrs. T. at previous sitting with M. alone said that this was
his wedding coat, referring to this same piece of cloth. Correct.]

[M. knew after the sitting on July 23 that the piece of cloth was cn:
from the wedding coat. After a sitting which he bad with Mrs. T. alow
between July 23 and 31, he told me that a "control" had referred to thb
piece of cloth (presented on July 23) and had stated that it was taken from
a wedding coat. — R. H. A. It was a piece of silk lining.]

" You know she hardly liked cutting this, but anything, anything, any
thing, to get evidence." [True.] * * *

[Control has pencil, and starts as if to write on table. R. H. gives block-
book. Written :]

" H RB what do you know the the [?] R [?] B . . . [undec.] » [Mv
husband's initials were H. R. G. B.]
(R. H. " Kindly write that again, that last.")

"B . . . " [undec.] . . . [Further scrawls below.] [End of writing.] * * *
[Tries with inkless pen to write. R. H. takes it away and gives pencil]
"B . . . [undec] 15 [written above to right.] . . . [undec] B . . .

[undec.] . . . [scrawls.]" [End of writing.] "He must accept that . . .

fifteen."
(J/. "What about it?")

" Did he die that day ? [?] What a patient girl she is this morning ! **
[apparently referring to S.]
(J/1 " Well, you haven't given her much for herself.")
" Like her by herself."

[M. and R. H. go out 11.20 a.uu M. called in 11.34.]
[S. notes."]

" What's Dorothy ? Is that you ? I want Dorothy." (S. "I am here,")

L1V.]

Sittings ivith Mrs. Thomjyson.

151

" Yes, yes. It was good of you to be patient."

(S. "No matter. I have waited. . . .")

** Waited so many years, you've got patient."

** B . . ." [couldn't catch] "he's trying to write . , . you. . . . The
\r orst is we read the contents of a letter without getting the message of the
pirit. His uncle is Robert — you know. [I believe true. A. True.] He
aid you always used to tease him and say how silly and absurd he was,
>ut it is more difficult now, he feels, and not as silly and absurd ; you know
ie was very sentimental — delightfully sentimental. What had Brownman
x>do?"

[Writing:] "B. . . . [uudec] Brown [?] B Bow m an. Richard . . .
H. . . . P." [?] [End of writing.]
(S. "What—Brown man— ?")

** Yes, Richard Bowman he knew —he says Richard Bow man. When he
travelled down to Altringham whilst he was there there was a very heavy
storm and he stayed on." [The name Altringham has significance. See
previous sitting, J uly 23. The rest is irrelevant.]

" Might I hold his ring that he used to wear— it is the one you gave
him." [I never gave him any ring, and he never wore a ring. A. The man's
crested signet-ring that S. was wearing her husband used to carry in his
waistcoat pocket as a seal.]

(S. " Can he tell me anything about that ring ? ")

" Why does he say you gave it him when you were his ? The one you had
was diamond." [True. He gave me a diamond ring which I was wearing.]

"He says that the girls were very vexed with you for trying to hear
from him. Think it absurd." [Probably true, from what I know of them.]

" What's Horace— Course I don't. .. ." (S. "Horace?") " Yes, belong to
one of the girls ; he always spoke of them as the girls — funny way to speak
of them." [I have a cousin Horace living, but unknown to the girls or my
husband.]

[Writing.] " My crest and yours." [End of writing.]

" What made him cough so— he coughed — yes. [Pause.] Some one put
something on his chest and round his back too, but you had something grey
straight down when you did it— grey dress." [My husband had mustard
plasters over the heart, not put on by me. A. He died of heart failure due
to typhoid fever with pneumonia as a complication, but he did not cough
except the choking cough preceding death. S. thinks that the doctor and
the nurse together put on the mustard plaster. The nurse was wearing a
grey dress with a white apron. S. was wearing a straight down blue
wrapper.]

" Is Bob there now — Is Bob there — who dg»e to the station. Yes — yes

..." [Writing.] "B. . . ." [Something

mustn't say it. . . ."
[Came out of trance. S. calls M.] i
Mrs Thompson saw " Ada " written up \ tyers

talking about a typewriter whi

152

Dr. Richard Hodgson.

[part

Mrs. Cartwright. Yes, I think it would be best not to have any more jiwfc
now. * * *

[K H. returns and notes. 11.47 a.m.] * * *

" Five years ago. . . . Where's that ring . . . some one's lost a ring."
(S. " I took it off. I put it on again.")
" Some one's lost a ring belonging to you."
(S. "No. I don't think so.")

" A little old-fashioned ring, Dr. Hodgson, that's lost." [Looking about
and moving hands as if searching for something. Loss not known.]
[11.55 a.m. Trance ends.]

Note by R.H.

Mrs. T. wakes and says she heard Mr. Myers say, " That's in the peerage.*
■Complains, after a short interval of conversation, that she feels muddied
M. suggests that S. and R. H. go out, while [another control] has opportunity
to come, as Mrs. T. feels clear always after [that control], S. and R. H g"
into other room ; and S. takes the shoe and handkerchief. Some time after-
wards, not noted, ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, M. first and shortly
afterwards Mrs. T. come in ; and after a short conversation Mrs. T. leaves.
Soon afterwards we adjourn to the seance room to make notes, and it is found
that the words " Barker is here " are written on a fresh page of the block-
book R. H. had presented for the automatic writing. The words appear U
have been written rapidly, and not in the style of the previous automatic
writing, and must have been written after S. and R. H. left the room. (The
last words written while I was in the room were on p. 7 of the block-book,
and the words " Barker is here " were on p. 8. R. H.) M. did not notice
their being written while he was in the room with Mrs. T. alone, but thinks
that they may have been written during that time. The only other time*
apparently at which they could have been written we/e just after M. left the
room and before Mrs. T. followed him,— or after Mrs. T. said good -day and
before we returned to the seance room.

The name " Barker " was clearly marked on the handkerchief presented by
S., a fact which did not occur to her till after she had given it. R. H.
July 31st, 1900.

Sitting III. August 7th, 1900.1

At 19 Buckingham Street ; present : F. W. H. Myers, R. Hodgson, and
Mrs. Thompson.

[R. H. notes. Mrs. T. arrived about 3.15 p.m. a few minutes after me, * * *
M. arrives 3.30 p.m. Mrs. T. says that she has been haunted by a man
named Barker, "a tall, young aristocratic-looking man." [Right, but too
general description. — M. B ] " He seemed very excited, and explained it by

1 In this and the following sittings the sentences in square bracketa signed M. B. art
Trs. Barker's comments on the record.

Digitized by

xliv.] Sittings with, Mrs. Thompson.

153

saving that it was my fault, as I wouldn't listen to what he was saying. I

asked if he was connected with , and he said, no, he didn't know ."

(M. " What kind of hair ? ")

" Dark hair, — he looked bronzed altogether, his face and hair looked dark
together." * * [Remarks apparently qualifying first statement that hair
was dark.] [Quite wrong — noticeably fair would have been right. — M. B.]

" I saw Barker first when I was awake, and heard ( let go,' and then passed
into trance."

(R. H. " Could you describe Barker any more ?")

"No, couldn't see him very clearly, he was trembling like one of those
biograph pictures." * * * [Trance.] * * *

(M. " And what about this man Barker whom your medium saw ? ")
" You mustn't come back to that again."
(M. " Yes, do just as you think right.") . . .

" Barker . . . Ho . . . Barker . . . Harold. . . [Names given at pre-
vious sittings. — M. B.] "No . . . this man a ... his neck was very
prominent . . . his chin was very prominent ... he was really handsome,
but his neck was so thin, and it gave his chin a rather pointed appearance."
[Quite wrong, especially about the neck — chin was very square. — M. B.]

* * * [Ordinary conversation and tea.] [Trance 4.50.] * * *
[Trance ends 5.18 p.m.]

Sitting IV. August 8th, 1900.

At 19 Buckingham Street ; present : F. W. H. Myers, R. Hodgson, Mrs.
Thompson.

[M. notes.] * * * [R. H. 10.32 notes.] * * *
[During trance.]

[Written :] " Surely there is hope for Dorothy, my wife." [Dorothy given
at previous sitting.— M. B.] "H.R.B.[?] H.R.B. . . . H.R.B. . . . H.R.B.[?]
H.B.B." [H.R.G.B. correct initials.— M. B.] [See sittings July 23 and 31.]

* * * [11.55.]

[Spoken.] " Where's Mr. Barker's slipper ? "

(M. " Would you like to see her again next week ?")

"Yes."

[Control appears to be searching for something. M. explains that the
slipper is not here.]

" Who's his great friend, a man whose name begins with C and only has
four letters'/ I'll try to give you that on . . . I think the things best
without the person."

(M. " Yes, simply the shoe, brought by Dr. Hodgson.")

" Not Clune . . . Clune [?]... because he was asking about him."
find out ; but so far do not know the name. — M. B. A. Nat
unknown.] _

( M. " He's still alive, this friend ? ")

Digitized by

154

Dr. Richard Hodgson.

[part

" Yes. I suppose you didn't notice when the control was talking

that he was there."
(R. H. "Yes, we got it after.")

[M. does not understand what is referred to, and control explains about

"Barker is here," and says it was written when the control was present.

R. H. reminds M. of the incident. See sitting of July 31.]
[Control asks R. H. to bring article of some other person as well.]
" Don't bring any letters with names in to lead one astray ..."
(R. H. "Articles of some entirely different person, you mean?")
" Yes. Dr. Hodgson has lady friend who has some old lady died belonging

to her lately. Bring something of the old lady's." [Significance not known.

— R. H.] * * *
[Trance ends about 12.10 p.m.]

At 19 Buckingham Street ; present : R. Hodgson and Mrs. Thompson.
[R. H. notes. Mrs. T. arrives 3.27 p.m. * * * Trance 4.02 p.m.] * * *
(R H. " Is this Mrs. Cartwright ?") "Yes. I think Mr. Myers told you

to let me have the slipper." (R. H. " Yes.") [Giving shoe in tissue paper.]
" It doesn't matter about being undone, does it ? " (R. H. " No.")
[Apparently taking off tissue paper, but operation not visible to me owing

to position of desk. I found later that the handkerchief was there also, —

" I remember your saying, Mr. Myers, about how could I see, etc * * *
This is not the same slipper that I had before — it seems different." [It was
the same. — M. B.]

(R. H. " I asked for the same, or rather I simply asked the lady for the
shoe, as you requested. It may be . . . ")
" It seems quite a clean one, quite fresh."
(R. H. " Yes ? I don't know any more.") [Pause.]

" I wonder why this makes . . . there's something about this a difficult
influence to get at ... it is indeed, yes. You see he was alive and quite
well in ninety-two. But he did something the year afterwards . . . but what
did he do ... he got married in 1893 ... I see 1893 so distinctly."
[Married in 1892 (Nov.).— M. B.] (R. H. " You see it?") "Yes, quite dis-
tinctly 1893." * * *

" Bobby . . . Bobby who ? " [to Sp.] [Robert is communicator's second
name. Once I called him " Bob " for fun. — M. B.]

" You know, Mr. Myers, I seem to be taken to a large seaport, where all
the vessels ... he seemed to go over a large vessel. I'm referring to the
boy belonging to the slipper ... I say boy ... he was only a young . . .
he didn't seem to be more than 23 when he was married." [He was married
when 28.— M. B.]

" I don't like the looks of his throat now ... it was his throat. He used

Sitting V. Augcst 13th, 1900.

R. H.]

XLIV.]

Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

155

to have something just here " [indicating neck from left ear down towards
front.]

(R. H. " Yes.") [My yes indicating understanding what was meant by
the description.] [There was no trouble with his throat — M. B.]

" He wants to know what made the girls so furious about her going there
. . . Dorothy went . . . she went for my sake, he says." [Not the case as
stated. — M. B.] * * *

" I say, Dr. Hodgson, I see now you're not Mr. Myers ; do forgive me for
calling you Mr. Myers, but I haven't been able to see. * * * "

"Harold Barker ... do you call him ? . . . well, I'll call him that"

{& H. " Yes.*) [See sittings July 23 and 31 .]

" He knows Mererva . . . Mererva . . . well, when he went to the house
she was there. You know what I'm talking about ?" (R. H. " Yea/') [Mrs.
Piper's younger daughter's name Minerva. — R. H.]

"You know he once wrote the name of a town — it gave him a lot of
trouble." [Not relevant to Piper sittings.]

" He wants to write the name of a town." [Drawing.]

"That's the stick he was so fond of" [indicating drawing].

[Slight noise apparently just outside door, perhaps a light tap.]

"What's that woman doing, listening?" [R. H. goes to door: servant
there says tea ready.] "... listening."

(R H. " No, it was only tea.")

(R. H. " That stick, Barker ? ")

" It was straight across . . . like a railway signal . . . silver here, silver
there " [pointing and marking].

[He had an ordinary stick, with handle as drawn, possibly one band on
silver. — M. B. A. Mrs. B. possesses the top of the stick. The stick doubt-
less had one silver band, but certainly not at either of the two points
indicated by Mrs. T.]

"He could draw very well, you know ; if he could get hold of Rosa's hand,
he could make her draw. Have you ever seen some of those caricatures he's
drawn of the boys ? " (R. H. " No.") " They were very good."

[He did not draw as far as I know. I have never seen him caricature. —
M.R]

"Strong smell of cigar smoke. I suppose it's those ..." [Sniffing.]
(R. H. " Mine ? ") " Yes." (R. H. " Mine, is it ? ") " Yes, you're not smok-
ing now, I can see. But you could just as well have finished it ; I was long
enough." [I had been smoking, but finished my cigar about ten minutes
before Mrs. T.'s arrival. On a previous occasion, as known to Mrs. T., I left
an unfinished cigar on the mantelpiece. — R. H.]

"I wish you'd . . . they all want those girls to do something. Can't they
do something and help their mother ? I feel rather cross. They think as
long as their mother has anything, they can have it They want speaking
to. It seems to me that that Barker wore a uniform, because the buttons
look round and bright Has he got a yacht?" (R. H. "I don't know.")
" Because I can see him so distinctly walking on board."

Digitized by Google

156

Dr. Richard Hodgson.

[part

[If "girls" refers to communicator's sisters — two are now well married,
and the third is a successful hospital nurse. Their mother is long since
dead. Communicator did wear a uniform ; but see sitting July 23. He
did not possess a yacht at any time. — M. R] * * *

" It's in a case, his pipe. Mr. Barker's pipe, in a case . . . like that, rather
a small one like that" [indicating drawing just made]. [He did (but rarely)
smoke a pipe. There was nothing special about any pipe of his I can re-
member.— M. R A. No recollection of any pipe-case.] * * *

[Trance ends 4.34 p.m.]

Sitting VI. August 14th, 1900.
At 19 Buckingham Street ; present : R. Hodgson and Mrs. Thompson.
[R H. notes, Mrs. T. arrives 10.30 a.m. Trance 10.50. Mrs. C]
"It's 10.51 now, 51." (R. H. "Yes.") [I had spoken 10.50 aloud while
writing it]

"You haven't anything belonging to the boy, have you ?"
(K H. " No. Would you like the shoe ? ")
"Yes." * * *

" This'U never be very good." (R. H. " Oh.*)

" No. There's something about it that I can't get at The . . . the . . .
What brin gs old Mary here ? . . . she travels everywhere."
(KH. "Is that to do with the shoe ? ")

" No, it's to do with Dr. Hodgson, with you." (R. H. " Yes.")

[Meaning that I understood that control referred to me. Mary has do
significance in this connection. — R H.]

" You know with this shoe man, I can see him falling from a horse. He
was not very upright, he used to lean a little forward, a little head first, he
was tall and it gave him that appearance."

[He had never any horse accident of any kind that I know of; it is
possible that he leant a little forward when riding, as most tall men do,
though he rode well. — M. B. A. Mrs. B. was mistaken in saying this. She
now recalls that he fell from a horse several times, but never received any
injury worth mentioning.]

" Why does Constance always come up with you, always comes up with
you . . . four or five times." (R. H. "With me?")

" You've written down about Constance several times with other peoglfc
Constance committed suicide. She came and told you, and you wnnP»
it down."

[I have no recollection of any Constance. — R H.] * * *

" I wish you had something with a different influence from this,
to be hunting for something that won't come."

(R H. " Will you have some articles of my own ? ")

"The old . . . the old ... I always call that la<
always call her Miss Gibson, because you see the old G
speaks of her like that. I say the old because she wai

Digitized by

Google

XLIV.]

Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

157

old when she came to us. You know that old lady, she's so interested in a
soldier, a man in uniform, and she wants to take care of him for some one
else. It was at the station when she said, Yes, I vrill." (R. H. "H'ni.")
"Yes." [Pause.]

[My father's mother died, I believe, before my birth. No such iocident as
the above implies occurred at a station. See July 23rd. — M. B.]
(72. H. "And the Grandma's interested in him ?")

*' Yes, the Grandma Gibson, you know, not the other one. And what's
the name of the old lady that died with the internal complaint, some growth
internally belonging to the old lady?" [No relevance known. — R. H.] "I
don't call her old lady, because she was wonderfully sprightly.

" Yes, I'll have something of yours, please. There are people that one can
get at, and another one cannot."

[I give bunch of keys from pocket Pause.]

" Yes, but this belongs to a man I was to have seen at Mr. Myers's house.
I want to talk about Eleanor." [Pause. It was my own bunch of keys.
Eleanor no significance. — R. H.] * * *

(R. H. " Would you like some more articles of mine ?")

" Yes . . . yes . . . it's rather dark, isn't it ? [Purse given.] What have
you been writing in this for ? " (R. H. " No.") " Oh, it was the purse you
gave me yesterday that was written in."

[No purse given yesterday. Mrs. T. had talked to me about a purse of
her own that was written in. — R. H.]

44 The old lady didn't like your coming to England. She'd like you to have
' stayed there, but as long as you had to go she'd come with you." [No

significance that I know of. — R. H.]
? 44 It was your duty to go, wasn't it ?" H. 44 Yes.") * * *

" There's a dear old lady with brown wavy hair, brown, and she died on a
Friday. It was rather a lonely life she led, and ..." [No relevance to
me.— R.H.]

" What was that account you were writing down ? putting some figures
down ..." (R. H. " Well . . . ") " This morning — you put down figures
on paper." [Wrote nothing whatever, except numbering the pages of these
sheets.— R. H.]

"Do you r^membittJiyur baby Bister dying long ago?" (R. H, "Yes/1)
1 Becatiw , . i ■ ' now, croup," {it. //. "Yes/1) u She had croup

lit/ lii crouP for a day or two." [Mentioned in

then I was very yoiintf, I believe not

ig to your little sister,

158

Dr. Richard Hodgson.

[part

" Don't put down your mother as an old lady, because she wasn't old . .
good figure, she had a good figure.'1

[My mother died at the age of 78. "Good figure" has not any speck!
appropriateness. — R. H.]

" Don't you remember the stockings she kept knitting you, and knitting
you and kept you supplied with ? "

[She did knit some stockings for me, but I believe only very few, perhaps
two or three pair. — R. H.]

" Don't you remember some friend of yours fell, had a fall, and died with
it, in some foreign country ..."

[Possible reference to G. P. — R. H.]

" Uncle Henry, . . . no, . . . Uncle Henry ..."

[Never had an Uncle Henry. — R. H.]

[Written.] " Maria says you were not always such a scattered family.8
[No Maria in our family that I know of. — R. H.]

" Your mother had fearful headaches, and the boys had to keep quiet ; ana
the animals, what was it she went out to feed,— with her apron on ?"

[Mother not specially subject to headaches, so far as I know. I have seen
her feed fowls, in which she took special interest, with an apron on. — R. H ]

" Have you cashed that cheque ? YouVe got to cash a cheque, you know.
It's written out now. I think it's written out now." [No relevance.—

" Where was your father going when he had his watch stolen ? He was
going from one place to another when he had his watch stolen," (It H
"Oh, I don't remember that")

"Yes. It was not a valuable watch, but it was taken. It was stolen.
Where is that other watch of his . . . will you give it to me ?" [holding om
hand]. (R. H. " I haven't got it.")

" Haven't you got the watch with the loose case ? What weut with the
watch with the loose case ?" (R H. " I'll inquire.")

[I have no recollection that any watch was ever stolen from my father. I
never possessed a watch that belonged to him, and know nothing of watch
with loose case of his. — R. H.]

" You know Mrs. Barker deserved to get something when she travelled
from one side . . . she did get something, but the great anxiety, the anxiety's
more on one side than on the other." (R. H. " Yes ? ") " It is really."

[In conversation on July 23, 1 mentioned Boston in connection with meet-
ing Mrs. B. there.— R. H.]

" There's an old gentleman by you now that walks rather lame." (R. &
" HW) "He's something to do with your mother and he walks lame." [No
relevance known. — R. H.]

" You know you used to be very united, but after that you were scattered r
(R H. " Yes.") " not as an individual, but as a whole family. The ..."
[Pause. The rest of our family continued to live in the neighbourhood of
home.— R. H.]

[Written.] " George says he told you about his sister's box."

R.H.]

• • *

XLIV.]

Sittings with Mrs. Thompson.

159

(R. H. " Yea") [Box, but not sister's. In Report, Part XXXIII.]

" Why do you call him Pelhara 1 That isn't his name, you know. . ." [as
if talking with Sp.] "... Oh yes, I see. Because you see the ones left
behind. . . . Had he two wives?"

(R H. " Not that I know of.")

" He seemed to have two people."

{R H. "Can you see more about them?") * * *

(R. H. " Yes.") [Correct real name of Pelham, but of no evidential value.
— R H.]

" That was one . . . get Phoebe do you know . . . what was his name ? "
(R. H. "Phoebe, did you say?") "Yes, Phoebe. He left two behind, one had
his name, and her relative, dead Phoebe, is here."

[G. P. never married. His father, living when I last heard, married twice ;
his second wife was deceased wife's sister. — R H.]

" Have you five at your house ?" [Pause.] " No, I mustn't ask questions.
Whaf 8 your mother got to do with five children?" [Pause.] [Four children
living, two dead.— R H.] (R. H. " Yes.")

" You know that little baby girl mentioned with the croup. Don't say
that's cause of her death, because it wasn't. But there was something the
matter with her throat from her birth." [Not that I know of. — R H.] "And
the boy wasn't so fully developed as the girl ?"

" What do you want me to do with these three sovereigns ?"

[Three sovereigns in the purse, it seemed to me easily ascertained by feel-
ing, and Mrs. T. felt purse a good deal. I asked a lady afterwards to guess
what it contained by feeling, and she guessed two sovereigns and a half-
sovereign. — R H.]

(R. H. " Anything. Take them out if you like.") [Pause.]

(/?. 27. " Perhaps the influences on them make my things harder to see ? ")

" It seems to me that I can see three sovereigns quite distinctly. The
whole thing's written so distinctly. Three sovereigns."

[Written.] "R . . R . . 5 . 5 ."

" I feel sure you're going to get those names. You want Mrs. Piper to get
you a name. They've promised to and they will . . ." [Possible reference
to names of Imperator group. — R H.] * * *

[Trance ends 11.42.] * • *

" Is Dr. Hyslop in England now ? It seems he's coming over here." [Not
that I know of.— R H.] (R H. " He is not here now.")
" He's coming over, and I'm going to speak to him." * * *
(R. H. "Do you think we had better give up this shoe person altogether?")

"Yes, I'm quite sure it won't be any use. I told so. It's impossible.

It puts away other things you know. You know it's a far greater strain to
find something that's not there." (R H. "Then . . . ") "I should say we
can't get anything more, anything at all." (R H. " It's no use spending
time if you feel that there are obstacles.") " Absolutely useless." (R. If.

[Trance, 12.17.] * * *

160

Dr. Richard Hodgson.

" I had better tell [M.] that no more experiments will be made with &~
articles or the lady. Do you think that will be best, or . . . ")

" Yon see he might be able to get near to some one else, but he'll never get
near to Rosa. You see Mrs. Cartwright sees the picture clairvovantly u>l
reproduces it again for Rosa. She doesn't get any direct word from tfcp
spirit

" The old lady connected with it was quite clear this morning, but the m&i
was not a real personage. You know, Dr. Hodgson, from your own experi
ence, that it's no use straining after a thing when nothing cornea. If ax
you'll only get muddle and confusion." (K J5T. " Yes/)

[Written.] * * * " Every person cannot communicate * * * * " any mar*-
than every one can receive communications." * * *
[Trance ends 1.11 p.m.]

Note.

Mrs. B. adds, in a letter of December 10th, 1900 :

w I have re-read the enclosed reports [July 23 and 31, August 7, 8, and 13]
carefully, also the letters which I took to the sitting, and nothing fresh
suggests itself to me. [A. This was in reply to my enquiry whether then-
were any other passages in the letters that seemed to have been made use of
by Mrs. T. beyond those quoted in connection with Sitting I. Apparent!}
there were not. Mrs. B. allowed me to see portions of tbe letters ia
question, but not to read the whole contents. — R. H.] The only point-
Mrs. T. could not have culled from the letters are : (1) that my husband
died abroad, (2) travelled by large vessel, (3) the length of time since 1*
died, (4) the asking for water incident. The 4 bottle ' allusion is very poor
and improbable now I come to think it over again. There are quite *>
many wrong statements to balance these, ue. the sisters helping the mother,
that I gave him the ring and that he always wore it, etc."

Note by Editor.

[Mrs. Barker has sent us the following further particulars of the two
letters used at her first sitting, giving rather more fully the passages
which— as appears from their position on the sheets — might perhaps
have been read without taking the letters out of their envelopes.
(From letter of October 2nd, 1890, addressed to "Miss D. Gibson.")
"... I am very glad you did not come up to town with me yester-
day. I drove to Waterloo and had to take my uniform case. . . .

. . I shall not forget the waiting-room at Altringham for a
ime. . . .

" Your sodger, Harold."

Digitized by

XLIV.]

Sittings with Mrs. Thompson,

161

(From first sheet of letter of October 31st, 1890, addressed to " Miss
Dorothy Gibson.")

" . . . Commander of the Guard ship here, H.M.S. Invincible. . . .

(From second sheet of the same letter, written later on the same day.)
" . . . ante-room before dinner. . . .

" My cap has been altered, so the gold braid you objected to is £ in.
narrower. They are going in to dinner, so good-bye. ... H. B.

"P.S. — The girls sent a letter to me the other day in a parcel from
home addressed H. R. Guthrie, Esq. ! ! "]

«c

Good-bye,

Harold."

162

Alice Johnson,

[paw

NOTE ON A POSSIBLY AUTOMATIC INCIDENT OBSERVED

In his Introduction (see above, p. 65) Dr. Lodge has spoken of what
he calls " suspicious circumstances " in Mrs. Thompson's sittings, when
information which there is more or less reason to think was obtained
normally is given out by the " control " as if obtained supernormally.
Supposing that in such cases the source of the information is really
normal, two interpretations are possible : (a) that either the medium
or the " control " deliberately misrepresents the circumstances ; or
(b) that the impressions of the medium are reproduced automatically
by the " control." Dr. Hodgson maintains the former interpretation
of some instances that came under his observation. I give below *
case occurring in my own experience which appeared to me suggestive
of the latter.

The account is written from my notes, made at the time of the
sittings.

At my first sitting, on July 25th, 1899, 1 had given to Mrs. Thompson
an envelope (A), fastened up, containing (1) a postcard, and (2) a letter
enclosed in a second envelope (B), not fastened. She had asked to be
allowed to put her finger inside envelope (AX so I had torn it open, and she
held it for a little while with her finger inside, I watching her meanwhile.
I could not see that she read anything, but I think it possible that she
could have done so without my detecting it. There was no sign, however,
that she did so ; and none of the information given in the inner letter or
postcard was reproduced. She gave the whole back to me, and I brought it
again to my second sitting on the following day just as it was.

At this sitting Mrs. Sidgwick was the only person present besides Mrs.
Thompson and myself. The sitting was chiefly occupied with statements
about an " old lady," whom I identified as an aunt who had died on June
11th, 1899, aged 81. The description of her was fairly correct.

I then took envelope (B) out of envelope (A) and gave it to Mrs. Thomp-
son to hold. Envelope (B) was addressed to one of my sisters by a friend,
B. Q., who had died on July 2nd, 1899, and it contained a letter from B. G.
to my sister. Mrs. Thompson, holding this letter, made a few rather

IN THE CASE OF MRS. THOMPSON.

By Alice Johnson.

LIV.]

Note on a Possibly Automatic Incident

163

igue remarks, which were more or less applicable to R 6. Then the
•ance ended.

Envelope (A), still containing the postcard mentioned above, was lying
q the sofa on which Mrs. Thompson and I were sitting. Without getting
p from the sofa, I began collecting the papers, etc, which I had brought to
he sitting, when suddenly Mrs. Thompson became re-entranced, and said
i a rather excited manner, " Put down, give my love to all at 3 Bristol
load [assumed address]. That's what the old lady said."

" 3 Bristol Road * was B. G.'s address, so that the remark appeared very
ignificant. Immediately afterwards, however, I saw that it was written at
be top of the postcard inside envelope (A), and could just be seen by
ooking towards the open end of the envelope. I can hardly doubt that
Vf rs. Thompson caught a glimpse of this — probably quite accidentally — as I
>ook it up to put it into my handbag. My impression is that she was not
conscious that she had seen it ; and that her subliminal self or " Nelly " re-
produced the percept without any idea of its real source, just as she would
probably reproduce any information she acquires through whatever means.
Though "Nelly" often knows that some of her information is directly
derived from Mrs. Thompson, and represents it as so coming, there seems
evidence in other cases (e.g. in the incident of the bee-hive earrings, etc,
in "Mr. Wilson's" sittings, see above, pp. 133-7), that sometimes it really
comes from Mrs. Thompson, while "Nelly" is under the impression that it
has some other source.

Considering how much general evidence there is that different strata of
consciousness in the same person may remain entirely unaware of each
other's activities ; also that the memories of different personalities may
partially overlap, while certain regions of them remain distinct ; — I see no
difficulty in the supposition that the part played by Mrs. Thompson in the
incident just described may have been purely automatic, — that she had no
intention either of obtaining information by underhand means, or of repre-
senting it as acquired in a manner different from that in which it really was
acquired. Mrs. Sidgwick, who also witnessed the incident, allows me to
say that this statement represents her view of it, as well as mine. Mrs.
Thompson's manner at the moment was, as usual, open and unembarrassed ;
there seemed no attempt at any concealment ; and I had, and have still,
a distinct impression of her entire sincerity in the matter.

164

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[PAKT

VII.

NOTES ON THE TRANCE PHENOMENA OF MRS. THOMPSON
By Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

Mrs. Thompson, as is probably known to many of the readers of
this paper, is a highly developed sensitive, a non-professions
medium, who has been for some years under the observation oi
Mr. Myers and other members of the S.P.R., and has lent hersefc
most freely to their suggestions. The opportunities therefore of
observation and experiment have been exceptionally good and
many, and the results obtained correspondingly valuable. I pn>
pose in this paper to confine myself to the description ari
criticism of such phenomena as I have myself personally observed
in my intercourse with Mrs. Thompson. I shall therefore no*
attempt to enumerate or classify all the abnormal occurrence
that have been noted in her case, nor to give an account of ber
previous history, or the development of her powers, interesting
as such a history would be. The present notes are only a cofr
tribution to the history of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs
Thompson, and supplementary to the records of other observers.

Under these circumstances I do not propose to discuss the
question of fraud on the part of the sensitive ; when I come to
treat in detail of the facts communicated to me, I shall do mj
best to state what opportunities there could have been for the
normal acquirement of the knowledge shown, and leave the reader
to judge whether the hypothesis of fraud, conscious or unconscious,
on the part of the medium will explain the facts. At the same
time, I should like to say at the outset of this paper that on no
occasion in my frequent meetings with Mrs. Thompson have I
had the slightest reason to suppose that she has taken any steps
to obtain information about my concerns or those of my friends;
on the contrary, more than once she appears to have missed obvious
opportunities of acquiring such information. Further, scrupulous
exactitude has been shown by her, in the normal as well as i»

Digitized by

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

165

the abnormal condition, in acquainting me with any knowledge
of my affairs of which she has become possessed. Into the question
of how far in the state of trance when her eyes are apparently
shut she is able to see, I shall not enter, as it is simpler to
assume that what she could know she did know. I shall hope to prove
that much of the knowledge shown by her could not have been
obtained by any normal methods hitherto recognised. The hypothesis
of "fraud" seems to me in the case of Mrs. Thompson not only
improbable but inadequate.

The sittings discussed in this paper took place between April, 1899,
and December, 1900. I first made Mrs. Thompson's acquaintance in
January, 1899, when I met her in a friend's house, by arrangement,
and talked to her for some half-hour or so ; my husband was in the
room at the time, but had no conversation with her. I had no other
opportunity of meeting Mrs. Thompson till April, 1899, when I spent
an afternoon and evening with her, also at a friend's house ; and it
was then that I had my first experience of the phenomena of her
trance. On this occasion, the trance occurred in the presence of
several persons, and the greater part of the communications were made
by Mrs. Thompson in writing ; these communications I did not see, as
they referred to matters spoken of in earlier sittings with which I had
no concern. Towards the end of the trance she made some statements
which applied to me. No regular notes were taken of these, but,
immediately on my return, I wrote down from memory what she said
to me, and my recollections were confirmed by Mrs. Thompson's host,
to whom I showed my notes on the next day. This sitting is referred
to in the following observations, but does not form one of the series
which I have analysed fully for statistical purposes.

On all other occasions referred to in this paper, full notes were
taken during the sitting. At my first two sittings in July, 1899, the
notes were taken by Miss Alice Johnson ; at one very short and unex-
pected sitting, with my daughter alone, the notes were taken by her.
On the other occasions I was the note-taker ; sometimes I was alone
with the sensitive, but more often there was another person present.
When mine were the only notes taken, I went through the rough
notes carefully with the other sitter before writing them out, but we
seldom found anything to correct; once, when the other sitter had
also taken notes, I sent my copy to him for comparison, and received
them back with only one small verbal correction. The taking of fairly
full notes is not very difficult ; there are often pauses of considerable
length in the course of the sitting, and the trance personality is always

166

Mrs. A. W. VerraU.

[PAET

willing to repeat any remark that has not been accurately heard by the
note-taker.

I append a complete list of the sittings that I have had with Mn
Thompson, and of messages received from her whether by letter or
through other sitters.

1. April 5. Sitting in Cambridge, not at my house; no regular

notes ;

2. July 27.1 Sitting in Cambridge, not at my house ; Miss Johnsons

notes;

3. July 28. 1 Sitting in Cambridge, not at my house; Miss Johnson*

notes;

4. October 5.1 Sitting at Hampstead, alone; my own notes;

5. October 10.1 Message concerning me spontaneously obtained bj

Mrs. Thompson (not during a sitting) and subsequently sent to me:

6. October 20. 1 Message concerning me given at a sitting to another

sitter and sent by that sitter to me;

7. November 2.1 Sitting at Hampstead, alone ; my own notes ;

8. December 4. Sitting in Cambridge at my house; Sitter, Dr

van Eeden ; my own notes.

9. December 5. Sitting in Cambridge at my house; Sitters, Mr

and Mrs. A.; my own notes;

10. December 5. Sitting in Cambridge at my house; Sitter, Mis

Helen Verrall alone; Miss VerraJl's notes;

11. December 6. Sitting in Cambridge at my house; Sitters, Mis

Verrall for a few minutes, then Miss Jane Harrison, m
for a short time Mrs. A. ; my own notes ;

12. December 7. Sitting in Cambridge at my house, alone; mj

own notes;

13. December 7. Letter from Mrs. Thompson written in London

containing message for Miss Harrison ;

14. January 2. Sitting at Hampstead; Sitter, Miss Harrison; my

own notes;

15. May 2. Sitting at Hampstead; Sitter, Mr. Z., my own notes;

16. May 10. Message concerning me given at a sitting to anothei

sitter and sent by that sitter to me;

17. May 14. Sitting at Hampstead; Sitter, Miss Harrison; my own

notes;

1899.

1900.

Full reports will be found in Appendix D, p. 223.

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

167

18. September 8. Sitting at the Society's Rooms, Buckingham

Street ; Sitter, Mr. Z. ; my own notes ;

19. September 14. Sitter, Miss Harrison; my own notes;

20. December 4. Sitting in Cambridge, not at my house; Sitters,

two gentlemen; my own notes;

21. December 14. Sitting at Buckingham Street, alone; my own

notes ;

22. December 17. Sitting at Buckingham Street; Sitter, Mr. Y. ;

my own notes.

For the purposes of this paper I have used the notes and
messages as above enumerated with the exception of Nos. 8 and 20,
when I acted strictly as note-taker, and no remarks on my own
concerns were made to me. No. 8 forms part of the series of Dr.
van Eeden's sittings, which he has himself described, and No. 20, a
very short sitting, belongs also to another series. For the statistics
with which this paper deals 1 have counted all the statements made
in Nos. 2 to 17 inclusive,1 (with the exception as above stated of
No. 8,) so far as those statements referred to myself, my daughter
(No. 10), Mr. and Mrs. A. (No. 9), and Miss Jane Harrison (No. 11
and subsequently). I have not included such statements made in
the second and third sittings as obviously referred to Miss Johnson,
but wherever it was uncertain to which of the two persons present,
Miss Johnson and myself, the trance personality was speaking, I have
counted the statements as made to me, so that the percentage of
unidentified statements is probably slightly higher in those two
sittings than in the others.

Before proceeding to the description and classification of the
various statements made to me or in my presence by Mrs. Thompson,,
it will be convenient to say a few words as to the manner in which
the information has been conveyed; I may say briefly that in my
experience information has been conveyed in the following ways:

(A) Directly from Mrs. Thompson, who has transmitted to
me in writing " messages " received by her when 1 have
not been present;

(B) Indirectly through Mrs. Thompson, entranced in my
presence. In the trance occasionally statements have been

1 These statistics were originally compiled for a paper sent to the Paris
Congress of Psychology in August, 1900, so that the statements in sittings
subsequent to that date have not been included. I have analysed them roughly
and find that their inclusion would not affect the general result.

168

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[PAKT

written by Mrs. Thompson with pencil on paper, te
usually the communications have been made by a supposed
personality speaking through Mrs. Thompson. The prin-
cipal personalities which have appeared within my observa-
tion claim to be:

(a) Nelly, a child of Mrs. Thompson, who died as a baby;

(b) Mrs. Cartwright, a former schoolmistress of Mrs. Thompson :

call Mrs. R

In this paper, without prejudice to the question whether these
personalities have an independent existence or are modifications of
the personality of Mrs. Thompson, I shall distinguish them by usifif
the names to which claim is made. I may say that they differ
among themselves and from Mrs. Thompson, so that there k
no possibility of a sitter confusing them. I shall say more about
these personalities later on,1 and will now pass to the consideraticc
of the actual statements made by them.

The most obvious classification of the statements made is to
divide them according to the time to which they refer — past, present,
or future. For our purposes, things referring to the past or present
being generally known or ascertainable, may be separated froo
things referring to the future, the truth or falsehood of which is
not known and cannot be immediately ascertained. Proceeding to a
further classification by results, we may have, in the case of state-
ments referring to the future, predictions fulfilled (true), not fulfilled
'(false), and unfulfilled (not yet tested), besides a fourth class too
vague or too general to be worth noting at all. In the case of
statements referring to the present or the past, we have, if we
classify by results, three possible classes, things true, things false,
things unverified or unidentified. The following table sums up the
above classification : 2

I. Predictions:

1 See p. 184.

*For details of I., see Appendix A; for TL F, Appendix B; for H. G,
Appendix C ; II. E is dealt with in the paper.

(A) Fulfilled (true).

(B) Not fulfilled (false).

(D) Not capable of classification.

li v.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. 169

II. Statements referring to the present or past:

(E) True.

(F) False.

(0) Unidentified or unverified.1

Instances of nearly all the seven classes have come within my
ireonal observation. To begin with the predictions, the total
imber made in my presence3 is 16, of which 6 come under Class
, 9 under B, and 1 under A} A list of these predictions is
ven in Appendix A. It will be seen that they deal for the most
irt with matters of trifling importance and common occurrence,
nder these circumstances, as it is impossible to estimate the value

* the results by comparing them with the ascertained number of
iccesses and failures in a similar series of random guesses, and as
irther the number of predictions not fulfilled (B) is relatively very
rge, I confess that I am not waiting with any particular interest or
ixiety for the results of the predictions hitherto unfulfilled. As
j as my personal impression and experience go, I have had no
sason to believe that Mrs. Thompson, or any of her personalities,
assesses the gift of prophecy.4

If we pass on to the classification of statements referring to the past
r the present, the material is much more abundant and the results,
» it seems to me, very striking. It is difficult to count statements
cactly when they have to be sifted out of miscellaneous conver-
sion, but I have gone carefully through the notes of my sittings5
etween April, 1889, and June, 1900 (sittings 2 to 7, 9 to 17, in the
st given above), and endeavoured to make a list of actual statements

1 1 call those statements unidentified which seem to have no connexion with
le sitter or the sitter's concerns ; unverified statements, on the other hand,
'e statements that are definitely connected with facts or persons known to
le sitter, but whose accuracy it has not been possible to ascertain.
2 Some predictions concerning me, directly or indirectly, have been made

> other sitters, but the consideration of these does not enter into my scheme,
i this paper deals only with my personal observations.

* The solitary " fulfilled prediction " concerned the occupation at a specified
ynr of the trance personality, and therefore is not strictly speaking a pre-
ction in the ordinary sense of the term, but as it is a statement referring

> the future it must be classified under this head.

4 1 have classed, for statistical purposes, all references to the future as
redictions, but in many cases I think that the statements made were hardly
» intended. See Appendix A for full list and discussion of details.

* Detailed reports and criticism of some of the sittings will be found in
ppendix D.

170

Mrs. A. W. VerraU.

made. When the same thing has been stated more than onoe, I
counted it as one statement. Three statements appear twice m
as there were at first definite false statements of facts, which,*-
no suggestion from me, were corrected wholly or partly on ■!>*
quent occasions. The form of correction varied ; once the contw
ling personality deliberately referred to her own previous remark, i:
put it right; once the fact which had been incorrectly staled 1
Nelly was correctly stated by Mrs. Thompson's handwriting
trance ; once a true statement inconsistent with a previous false a
was correctly given without any reference to the previous vera
Tentative or vague remarks subsequently defined have been coral
in their final form only ; these, I may say, were very few. 1
one occasion Nelly made a rambling series of remarks which sees
at the time hopelessly confused, but the next day Mrs. Cartwnj
disentangled and sorted the various observations and these tberd
have been counted as finally stated by her.1

The total number of statements made to me between the &
mentioned above has been 238 ; of these 64 come under Class
unidentified or unverified ; 33 under Glass F, false ; and 141 na
Class £, true. It will thus be seen that the percentage is as follows

Class E (true), 59.

Class F (false), 14.

Class G (unidentified), 27.
In Appendix B will be found a complete list of the false statentf
and in Appendix C a general description of those that ao?
identified;2 here I propose to deal with the correct statement*
detail, and to consider what possible sources of information *
open to' Mrs. Thompson.

Class E. Correct Statements.

The render will, I think, be prepared to admit that unless
statements made were of the most commonplace and vague kind, I
large percentage of correct statements excludes the possibility that I
cause of the success is to be found in accidentally accurate gues*1
Fortune, no doubt, favours the bold, and much must be allowed fo
lucky accident : such a percentage of success as 59 would not wan*

1 See p. 179.

3 It should be noted that the general head of unidentified statements i^*
rk - totally differing from one another both in nature and in value- !

idix C.

Digitized by

Google

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

171

ias in assuming a supernormal intelligence on the part of the guesser
were the statements like those of the ordinary "palmist" or the
society fortune teller, such, for instance, as that a "dark lady
acquainted with the sitter" had recently had a "trouble connected
with money," or that the sitter had lost a friend through "an
accident" or by "a violent death." The statements that appear in
my notes are not of this nature; many of them will be given in
detail later on, but a few specimens taken at random will serve to
sliow that we are dealing, for the most part, with perfectly definite
statements. I find among my notes the following statements: that
the sitter's husband has two brothers and one sister living; that
a. lawyer called Stephen or Steevens was intimate in a certain
house ; that the sitter had been occupied during the last day or two
in turning over sheets of paper and making corrections upon them ;
that the name of a new sitter introduced during the sensitive's
trance was (let us say) Kitty ; that a letter held by the sensitive
had been kept in three places, viz., a left-hand drawer, the locked-up
cupboard of a writing table, and an old-fashioned writing-desk. I
have made no selection in the above enumeration ; some of the
statements are correct, some incorrect, but the reader will not deny
that they are definite.

Granting then that accident will not account for the success shown
by Mrs. Thompson, let us see whether statistics throw any further
light on the question whether the information undoubtedly possessed
by the sensitive has been acquired normally or by some method
or methods not hitherto generally recognised as available. I may
say that under the head of knowledge normally acquired I should
include not only everything consciously learnt by the sensitive, but
everything that she can have gathered from half-forgotten conversa-
tions, from the clever piecing together of clues accidentally given,
from the rapid glance at written words or names that have been
within her range of vision, even from so fraudulent a performance
as the deliberate conveying to her, without her consent or know-
ledge, by some other person, of ascertainable information. Thus,
if facts obtainable from the Peerage or Who's fWio, or such other
source, were given, not at the first interview with a stranger, but
at a later sitting after an interval during which the sitter's name might
have become known, I have counted such information for my present
purpose as normally acquired, though I must not be understood as
thereby implying my belief that it was so acquired. So that, when
once a person described by the sensitive has been recognised

172 'Mrs. A. W. Verrall. [Ml

and named by the sitter, all such subsequent information about
person as could be found out by an enquirer counts for my p&d
purpose as normally obtained knowledge. J

Of the 141 correct statements made to me, including the three M
were corrections of previous errors, 51 1 were matter that coaldbil
been learnt by normal means and 90 were not. It will til
be seen that the percentage of correct statements obtainable I
the sensitive from normal sources of knowledge is 36, so that V
non-ascertainable statements constitute 64 per cent., or nearly tH
thirds of the whole number of correct statements.

Thus, after putting aside unverified or vague remarks, raeor^
assertions, and such correct statements as were normally obtaioakk
there remains an irreducible minimum of 90 out of the total of 23M
38 per cent., which are correct and not to be obtained by the senatt
through any normal recognised means of information. This l*j
percentage, taken in conjunction with the detailed nature of b4
of the assertions, warrants the belief that Mrs. Thompson has
source of information not generally accessible.

With regard to the nature of that source of information, there
not yet seem to be sufficient evidence to justify a dogmatic asserti*
The information given, in my experience, varies considerably in&
tinctness as well as in value, and the general impression left upon b
is that the source is not always the same, Occasionally, for instatf
there seems to be direct telepathy between the communicate
personality and the sitter, while on other occasions such telepatk
is conspicuously absent. I have endeavoured to classify the inform
tion given according to its possible sources, and in the account thi
follows I have grouped the incidents together according to the clt
under which they seem to fall. Some classification is necessary 1
guide the reader through what would otherwise be but a hopek
tangle of isolated facts about a stranger's concerns. It is rather wit
the intention of stating than of solving the complex problems ariai

1 Among the 51 1 have reckoned 6 very remarkable statements as to the «
tents of a certain letter which was " psychometrised, " as Mrs. Thompson ct
it, for me by Mrs. Cartwright ; — not that I believe the information to have be
normally acquired, but, as the letter was in the same house as Mrs. Thompeo
and as Mrs. Thompson was once alone in the house for three-quarters of an hos
though it is exceedingly unlikely that she had seen the letter, and ind*
impossible that she should have come across it by accident, it is not a physk
impossibility that she should have read it. Her statements therefore, as to i
contents are not counted as due to supernormal knowledge. See pp. 204-7 *
detailed account.

Digitized by

liv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

173

oin the phenomena presented by Mrs. Thompson that I have adopted
le classification which follows.

The correct statements of facts not ascertainable by Mrs. Thompson
Eive been grouped under four heads :

(a) Things known to the sitter and directly present in his

consciousness ;

(b) Things known to the sitter, but not immediately present in

his consciousness;

moment so far forgotten as only to be recalled by the
statements of the medium ;

(d) Things unknown to the sitter.

Illustrations will make clearer the distinctions between these
lasses: (a) Things known to the sitter and directly present in his
onsciousness. Under this head fall all the statements as to articles
rought by the sitter, and all remarks about friends of the sitter
rhen once there has been identification of the person described by
felly with an actual acquaintance. Thus I class under this head
Irs. Thompson's correct statements with regard to a small locket
rhich I had given her; namely, that it belonged to another lady
rho had given it to me, that uat the beginning of it all" was an
Id dead lady called Annie or Anna, that the white hair in the
>cket belonged to a different dead lady, not Anna. But I do
ot put under this head but under the next (6), further correct
tatements which she made about the old lady Annie, or about

ring belonging to the owner of the white hair, as these further
batements, though true, had no sort of connexion with the locket
nd were not present in my consciousness at the time. Under
his head (a) comes a very striking allusion (see p. 214) to the
ircumstances connected with the death of a certain lady, Mrs. B.,
aade by Mrs. Thompson immediately on taking into her hands
, letter from a relative of the lady's; the letter contained no
eference to Mrs. B.'s death, but had been given to Mrs. Thompson
d the hope of obtaining from her definite information concerning
he lady, known to both the sitter and the note-taker. Descriptions
>f objects brought by the sitter, given before the objects have
>een seen by the sensitive, come into this class, as do also
nstances of apparent direct response on the part of Nelly to a

Facts Not Ascertainable by the Sensitive.

174 Mrs. A. W. Vei-rall [part

thought in the sitter's mind. Some very clearly marked instances
of this last have fallen within my own observation ; the cases are
not very numerous, but the response from the "control" to what
has been thought but not uttered by me has been so rapid and
complete that, were it not for the evidence of the other sitter, I
should have been disposed to believe that I had unconsciously
uttered the thought aloud.

Thus on one occasion Nelly said that a red-haired girl was
in my house that day, and I was wondering whether a certain
friend of my daughter's who is often at the house would be there*
when Nelly added, " Not So-and-so," mentioning by name my daughter's
friend, exactly as though I had uttered the passing thought1 Again,
when Nelly was describing a certain bag given to me for mj
birthday, something she said made me for a moment think of a
small leather handbag left in my house by a cousin and occasionally
used by me, and she said : " You had an uncle that died ; it was
not long after that." The father of the cousin whom I had just
thought of is the only uncle I have known, but his death long
preceded the giving to me of the bag as a birthday present, which
was what she had quite correctly been describing till my momentary
thought apparently distracted her attention to the other bag.2 I
have had in all some five or six instances of such apparently direct
responses as the above to a thought in the sitter's mind, but when
at Nelly's suggestion I have fixed my attention on some detail for
the sake of helping her to get it, I have never succeeded in doing
anything but what she calls "muggling her."

I pass to the next class (b), much more abundantly illustrated in
my experience^; things known to the sitter but not immediately at
the moment present in his consciousness. The greater number of
the correct statements made to me by Nelly come under this head,
so that to illustrate this class fully would be to give a complete
account of some of my sittings. A single illustration must suffice.
In what was practically my first sitting with Mrs. Thompson — for I
had only been present once before with several other people while
she was entranced — Nelly gave me a series of descriptive touches of
a dead lady with whom I was intimately acquainted, all of which
were true, characteristic, and familiar ; but they were not the leading
traits in this lady's personality, the points on which I should have
seized had I wished to recall her to a third person. Nor was mj
attention fixed on this particular friend at the beginning, for I had.
1 Sec App. D, p. 231. 1 See App. D, p. 242.

Digitized by

liv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. 175

ven the sensitive a small hair cross and was expecting informa-
on about its owner. But the statements of Nelly were definite
nd accurate, referring to small details of dress, — among other
lings saying that my friend wore a black silk apron trimmed with
ce fastened by an elastic and button round the waist, that this
r>ron had belonged to some one else before her (the lady had
ften told me that it was her mother's), and that she folded
in a particular way; Nelly also described correctly the
tdy's objections to the low-necked frocks which my child wore
3 a baby, and imitated a habit she had of pulling up the child's
nder-vest to cover her bare neck; she further successfully re-
roduced a facial trait of this lady, a characteristic movement of
ie lips, and finally described her as puzzled at the situation,
oubtful as to the truth of Nelly's statements that 1 was really
resent — all this very characteristic — but engaged in obtaining
xplanations of the circumstances from Dr. Arthur Myers. There
^as no sort of reason why Mrs. Thompson should associate the lady
i question, had she known her name, with Dr. Myers; as a fact
ley had not met more than three or four times, but on those
ccasions my friend had been in the habit of discussing the
roblems investigated by the S.P.R. with Dr. Myers, because, as she
sed to say, his explanations made the things easier for her
> understand.1

These statements then, it will be seen, were definite and accurate ;
tiey were characteristic, but they were not present in my mind ;
icy were not obvious, nor were they what I should have myself
elected had 1 wished to recall memories of my dead friend to
nother acquaintance. Other and more intimate things than details
f dress and personal habits were in my thoughts as soon as the
tiaracteristic points given by Nelly had made me realise of whom
ie was speaking, but to these no allusion was made. Telepathy
tiere may have been — it is difficult to say where telepathy may
ot be — but it cannot be said that direct telepathy from the
nmediate consciousness of the sitter can account for all the
tatements that come under this second head (6), as might be said
f the statements classed under (a).

The third class (c) contains "things that have been well known
t> the sitter, but are at the moment so far forgotten as to be
ecalled only by the statements of the medium." It is not always
asy to draw the line between this class and the preceding one, but

1 See App. D, Sitting 2, p. 223.

176

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[put

the distinction is between the things that are not prominent in ooe»
mind and the things that have altogether passed out of one's
supraliminal consciousness, though the mention of them recalls
them to memory. Under this head (c) comes Nelly's mention
of carpet slippers with foxes' or animals' heads upon them in
connexion with a certain dead Theodore who "belonged" to me
Only one Theodore "belongs" to me, and such points in the
general description as were given seemed to be appropriate. My
recollections of this Theodore were few, though fairly vivid ; he hi
died about five years before the sitting, having lived in Austral*
for the last thirty years of his life. I had written to him shortly
before his death, but had had no answer and had not seen him since
I was a child of five or six years old, when I knew him welL At
first I could attach no memory to the slippers with their foxes
heads, but a recollection came back, was strengthened by time and
confirmed by the remembrances of other members of my family, that
I had worked him some slippers, putting in the ground behind the
foxes' or animals' heads which were on the work when it w
bought Nelly's definite account of my working the slippers, gives
at a later interview, comes under class (a), as I then asked her about
Theodore, with the intention of seeing whether her informatioQ
would be more complete now that my recollection was moit
definite, but the early reference at my very first interview to
Theodore's slippers1 comes under the head of more than half-
forgotten things.2

The next class (d) — things unknown to the sitter — is the most inter-
esting, as the information given can hardly be due to telepathy, unless
we are to give to the word a much wider significance than has hitherto
been done. Communication with the mind of the sitter will not
explain the correctness of statements demonstrably unknown to the
sitter's consciousness, and if such statements occur too frequently to
be ascribed to chance, we must seek for their explanation some
other source of information, such as clairvoyance, or communication
in some form with the minds of persons absent and unknown to

1 As perhaps throwing some light on the origin of Nelly's information in the
first instance, I may say that I have many recollections of Theodore mwb
more vivid than the slippers are, even now after many efforts to recall their
story ; but I think that Theodore can have had very little knowledge about roe*
and if pressed to say something of me, would probably have known only two
things — that I was my mother's daughter, and that I had once worked bi*
some slippers.

9 See App. D on Sitting 2, p. 227.

XXIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

177

tlie sensitive, perhaps even of the dead. It may be said that it
is difficult to demonstrate that any particular fact is and has
always been unknown to a sitter, especially if, while granting the
possibility of telepathy, we further suppose that what is known to
a person's habitual associates may have been communicated to that
person's subliminal self. But for the purposes of my present paper
there is a clearly defined class of things unknown to the sitterj and
this is the class of which I am speaking.

The number of cases of this kind has been small in my experience —
ten in all ; and I propose to relate them here in detail,1 adding such
information as I have been able to obtain as to the possession by
others than the sitter of the knowledge shown, so that the reader
may judge what is likely to be the sensitive's source of information
in each case. Some of the cases are in themselves trifling, and
would be of little interest if they made part of a long series of
random guesses. But in the rarity of such random guesses, com-
paratively trivial or commonplace matters are of interest and
value.

(1) My daughter had received as a birthday present from an
aunt during her absence from home a small old-fashioned brooch,
under the following circumstances:2 she and a cousin had been
offered by the aunt two little trinkets of her own, this brooch and
a ring, and the cousin, being the elder, had been given her choice.
She chose the ring on the ground that she already happened to
own a brooch in other respects exactly like the brooch offered, but
set with red stones instead of blue. I knew of the aunt's gift and of
the fact that the cousin had chosen the ring, but not of her motive
for so doing. I took the brooch to Mrs. Thompson about a
fortnight after my daughter's return home.

Nelly (a) described the brooch without seeing it, and said (b)
that it had belonged to an old lady, and (c) that there was another
similar brooch connected with it. It will be observed that (a) the
appearance of the brooch was known to me, the sitter, that (b) the
fact — correctly stated — of its former ownership was a reasonable
inference for any one who, like me, had seen the brooch, but that (c)
the existence of a similar brooch was unknown to me, but known to
at least three living persons. It was only when I restored the
brooch to my daughter and related what the sensitive had said that
I heard about the existence of the similar brooch, which was in

1 The tenth case is too private to be related ; it is briefly described on p. 196.
3 See App. D, Sitting 4, pp. 234-7, for full account.

178

Mrs. A. W. VerraU.

[PART

fact an element of some importance in the story, as it determined
my daughter's ownership of this brooch.

(2) I had shortly before Mrs. Thompson's visit to me in Decem-
ber, 1899, marked in a shopman's catalogue a small pendant for
wearing on a watch chain which I intended to give my daughter as
a Christmas present. I had not mentioned my intention to any one,
and the catalogue had been put away with other papers where it
was not accessible. Nelly, in a talk alone with my daughter when
I was out of the house, told her that some one called Margaret —
which is my name — would give her a trinket to wear on her chain
if she asked for it. When I found this statement in the record
made by my daughter of Nelly's sayings, I consulted my daughter
and showed her the marked catalogue; but the present was not given,
as I found she preferred something quite different

The knowledge thus shown — if it is not to be called a guess, and
it should be noted that no other such guesses were made — was
possessed only by me, who was out of the house when the state-
ment was made.

(3) My daughter, who was away from home, had received among
other presents at Christmas a book which I had not seen, though
1 had been told its title. I did not know that it was illustrated.
Nelly said to me on January 3, 1900, at Hampstead, in the presence
of another sitter, who knew nothing of my daughter's presents,
that Helen had received a book for a Christmas present with a
picture of a ship in it. This was, as I subsequently found, correct :
there are six pictures in the book, in one of which is a ship, and
this picture is reproduced on the cover.

The knowledge here shown — if it is not reckoned as a guess, and
it should be noted that no other statements were made by Nelly
about Christmas presents — was not possessed by me, the sitter, but
was possessed by my daughter, by the giver of the book, and doubt-
less by other persons who had seen the book.

(4) When I gave Mrs. Thompson the locket mentioned above
(p. 173), I believed it to have belonged to my youngest sister, who
had died as a young child in 1866. There had been three exactly
similar lockets, containing my grandmother's hair, given to myself
and my two sisters, and after my little sister's death my mother
carried the locket on her watch chain. After my mother's death in
1894, my sister, hearing that I had lost the hair out of my own
locket, gave me hers, keeping the one that had belonged to my
little sister and my mother. But I had misunderstood her, and

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

179

thought that it was this one that I had, and was taking to Mrs.
Thompson. After saving that the locket was not mine, Nelly gave
a short description of the lady to whom it had belonged, which
was wholly inapplicable to my mother, though appropriate to my
sister. I had consequently reckoned this statement as incorrect, and
it was only on mentioning the matter to my sister that I found
that I had been mistaken, and that Nelly's account of the previous
ownership of the locket was, as far as it went, more accurate than
my own.

The information shown on this occasion was thus not possessed
by me, the only sitter, but was possessed, as far as I know, by
only one other person, my sister, who had never seen Mrs. Thompson,
and was not aware that I was intending to take the locket to her.

(5-9) The next five cases are closely connected, and the informa-
tion purports to have been communicated to the sensitive by a dead
relative of the sitter. The history of the way in which these statements
were obtained is worth noting ; it affords a curious illustration of what
I have noticed more than once, namely, the apparent growth or
development of information on the part of the trance personality,
during an interval between two sittings, where there has been no
possibility that the sensitive should have become possessed of further
knowledge by normal means, even if we suppose her willing to obtain
such knowledge surreptitiously. At an interview at my house when
Mr. and Mrs. A. were present, and I was taking notes, Nelly made a
rapid and confused statement, which seemed to Mr. A., sitting
for the first time with Mrs. Thompson, to be wholly unin-
telligible. Mrs. A., who had been present at other sittings,
thought that the remarks suggested confusion rather than mere
imagination, but it was impossible to make anything of the
statements as given. Mrs. Thompson was told on coming out of the
trance that the sitting had not been successful, as there was a great
confusion of statements. The next day Mrs. Thompson informed
me that she had had a vision or trance when she was alone,
in which Mrs. Cartwright had appeared, and had said that Nelly
had made a great confusion between Mr. A.'s relatives, and that she
should herself have to come to set things straight Later on, after
a long and very successful sitting under Nelly's auspices with another
friend of mine, Nelly was replaced by Mrs. Cartwright. At Mrs. Cart-
wright's request, the notes of the previous sitting with Mr. and Mrs. A,
were produced and read aloud, sentence by sentence, in the presence of
Mrs. A. but without Mr. A. At each pause Mrs. Cartwright stated

180

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[paw

whether the remark was true or not, and to whom it referred, so tint,
in the end, out of an apparently hopeless tangle a definite series of
statements was obtained from the trance personality, some of them
known by Mrs. A. to be true, some of them entirely unfamiliar to
her. These latter were six in number ; one of them appears to be
wholly incorrect (App. B., No. 18); the other five are here related,
Nos. 5 to 9.1

(5) It was stated that Mr. A. had a relative, an old lady, alive, t
" rare old lady for knitting " ; that this lady used to carry about with
her around knitting-basket which contained her "top-knot, an ornament
for her head, a cap you might call it, but it was a top-knot" Mrs. A
was well acquainted with an old relative of Mr. A,'s, who was a great
knitter, but had never seen her with a round knitting basket or any
cap basket, and knew nothing of a " top-knot." Mr. A. could throw
no light on the statement. Mr. A.'s sisters, on hearing the above
account, said that the relative in question, having somewhat thin hair
in middle life, before adopting the old lady's cap, with which Mrs. A
was familiar, had worn a little knot of black lace on the top of her head
which her young relatives called her top-knot, and which she used to
take about with her in a round knitting-basket

(6) It was stated that Mr. A.'s mother, now dead, " was familiar with
the wife of a retired naval officer ; you could get information about
this." It was known to Mrs. A. as well as to Mr. A. that his mother
had few intimate or familiar friends, and of these there was only one,
Mrs. C, whose husband's occupation was unknown to Mrs. A., as the
lady was a widow when Mrs. A. first heard of her. Mr. A. supplied
the information that the husband was called Captain C, but thought he
had been in the army. Mr. A.'s sisters, however, said that he had been
a captain in the navy, and had retired from the service before his
marriage. They further said that this lady, the widow of Captain
C, was the only person outside her immediate family group who
had visited their mother during her last illness.

(7) It was stated that Mr. A.'s mother used to wear a "white
Shetland shawl," and that the shawl was still in existence in her

1 As Mr. and Mrs. A. do not wish their name to be printed, I am unable to print
the record of this sitting in App. D. But I have quoted the actual words of the
sensitive throughout whenever it was possible. The information not already pos-
sessed by Mrs. A. was obtained by her from her sisters-in-law, the Miss A.'s.
about three weeks after the sitting, when she read to them my record of the
statements of the sensitive and the comments of Mr. and Mrs. A. The Miss A.'t
do not live in Cambridge, and had not heard of Mrs. Thompson till Mrs. A
showed them the record.

xliv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. 181

husband's house, " still here, not in your house (to Mrs. A.), in the other
house." Neither Mr. A. nor Mrs. A. had any recollection of such a
shawl, and Mrs. A. was sure that she had never seen her mother-in-
law wear a Shetland shawl. But the daughters said that their mother
used to wear a white Shetland shawl as an evening wrap, in their early
childhood, before Mrs. A.'s acquaintance with her, and the shawl is
still in existence in the husband's house. After their mother's death
the shawl, which had special associations for her, had been kept by the
daughters. It may be said that it would be a safe guess to say that a
lady of the age of the lady in question had worn a white Shetland
shawl, but it would not be a very safe guess to go on to say that
such a shawl was still in existence in its late owner's house.

(8) It was stated that the same lady used to fasten the Shetland
shawl with a brooch, and this brooch was described in detail. It was
said to be about the length of a brooch held by Mrs. Thompson at the
moment, but not so high, " more lengthwise, with open work of gold
round it, and plaits of hair behind." Mrs. A. was further told " to
ask the stouter lady " about the brooch. Mrs. A. had no knowledge
of any such brooch ; two brooches were known to her, but neither of
them answered to the description. Mr. A. had no recollection of any
of his mother's brooches. The daughters said at once that there* was
a brooch corresponding to the description in all respects, except that
there was no hair at the back, the central stone being a topaz set
transparently. The brooch had been worn by their mother during
their early childhood, and by the elder daughter for a short time some
thirty years ago. Mrs. A. asked what was to be made of the suggestion
that " the stouter lady " should be asked about the brooch, as by the
stouter lady she had supposed the younger and less thin daughter was
meant, who, as so far appeared, had no connexion with it. She then
found that the brooch with other trinkets had actually been in the
charge of the younger daughter, and kept in a drawer in her room
ever since their mother's death. Under these circumstances, Mrs. A.
proceeded "to ask the stouter lady" for the brooch, and the brooch was
fetched from the place where it had been kept undisturbed for six or
seven years. It was found to have at the back a plait of two different
kinds of hair, black and grey. The topaz, which looked transparent,
was, in fact, set upon a coloured foil, and the centre of the brooch was
solid.

(9) It was stated that Mr. A.'s mother, being "a clearing-up,
methodical lady," possessed a manuscript receipt book,1 still in

1 " She had things put in a book of receipts."

182

Mrs. A. W. VerraU.

[part

existence in her husband's house, and that in this book were
receipts other than cookery receipts, and in particular a receipt
for pomade, or, as the lady herself used to call it, "pomatum." It
was known to Mrs. A. that her mother-in-law had possessed such a
receipt book as described, but nothing of its contents was known to
her. The existence of the book was not known to Mr. A. The
daughters knew of the book, and said that pomatum was certainly the
word used by their mother for the article in question, but they knew
nothing of any receipt for pomade. The book was fetched ; it had
been written in from both ends and was carefully indexed. No receipt
for pomade appeared in the index, but after the experience of the
brooch, sufficient confidence was felt in the accuracy of Mrs. Thompson'^
information to induce a search through the book. It was then found
that the last five receipts, counting from one end, had not been
indexed, and that among these was a receipt for making Dr. Some-
body's pomade. The book had never, so far as is known, left the
house where its owner had lived, and Mrs. Thompson had certainly
never entered that house. The receipt was moreover in the middle
part of the book, and, owing to its not having been indexed, was not
very easy to find, even for those who had leisure to search.

With regard to the possession by others than the sensitive of the
knowledge of the facts in these five cases, it will be seen that they have
points of difference and points of resemblance. In all five cases the
information (a) was certainly unknown to one sitter, Mrs. A. ;
(b) was certainly not consciously possessed by the other sitter, Mr.
A.; (c) certainly had been possessed by the dead lady from whom
Nelly represented herself as having obtained it. In cases 5 and 6
it is probable that Mr. A. had at one time or other known the
facts about the top-knot and the profession of Captain C. ; it is
also likely that he had seen the white Shetland shawl (7), though
he certainly did not know that it was still in existence. In
case 8 it is very unlikely that, even if he had as a child seen the
brooch, he knew anything of the plaits of hair at the back, and
he certainly did not know that it was in the keeping of the younger
sister. In the last case, 9, he was not aware of the existence of the
receipt book, and it may be taken as certain that he had never read it
The greater part of the facts were known to some other living persons,
as must always necessarily be the case if statements made by the
sensitive and unknown to the sitter are to be capable of verification.
These living persons were unknown to Mrs. Thompson and were
themselves unaware that reference had been made to their family or

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

183

friends, so that their thoughts were not directed to reminiscences of
deceased relatives. Moreover, the whole of the facts were not known
to these living and absent persons. The only person who knew all
was the dead lady herself. If such experiences as these were numerous,
it would be difficult to avoid inferring that the source of information
is to be found rather in the one consciousness that knew all the
events than in the scattered consciousnesses which can, after all,
not supply the whole. But more of such experiences would seem
necessary before we are warranted in constructing even a provisional
hypothesis of this sort.

Moreover, while the evidence from this group of cases (5 to 9) seems
to point in the direction of communication from the dead as the
simplest explanation of the knowledge of the sensitive, it must be
remembered that no such source seems indicated by the evidence in
the other group (1 to 4). There the facts, unknown to the sitter,
were in three cases known to another living person not then present,
but familiar with Mrs. Thompson, and interested in the sittings. In
the last case (4) the knowledge was possessed by a stranger to Mrs.
Thompson ; but in none of these cases is there any reason to suppose that
any dead person knew the facts, or was interested in them, nor did Nelly
claim to have become possessed of the information through any other
means than her own. In two of the cases the information concerned
an article held by Mrs. Thompson at the moment, and in the other
two, it concerned the doings of persons known to Nelly, who, it may
be said, claims to be able occasionally to visit people whom she knows.1
The only u person" then in these cases who could obtain the informa-
tion given, and supply the common element, is the trance personality
which we call Nelly. Of the question of the independent existence
and interdependence of the various trance personalities I do not
propose to treat in this paper ; my present point is that the knowledge
shown in cases 1 to 4, if it is to be regarded as something more than
accidental, is not analogous to the knowledge shown in cases 5 to 9.
Its explanation, be that what it may, clearly is to be found in the
possession by Mrs. Thompson of some faculty other than that of
obtaining information possessed by a deceased friend of the sitter.

1 For other instances of knowledge shown where Kelly claims to have visited the
person in question and " seen " what was being done, see p. 187 foil. But the
analogy is not complete, for in the cases there related, the facts, though not
consciously in the sitter's mind, were known to her, and therefore the hypothesis
of telepathy from the sitter is not, as in the above cases 1-4, excluded.

184

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[part

Methods of Communication.

It having, as I hope, been shown that some, at least, of the statements
made by Mrs. Thompson are such as cannot be due to random guessing
or to information normally acquired, it will now not be out of place to say
something about the methods by which the communications are made,
and more particularly about the so-called personalities that are the main
source of information. The methods employed fall, as has been
already said (see p. 167), into two principal divisions according as the
statements made are, or are not, known consciously to the normal
personality of Mrs. Thompson. Some of the statements made to me
have taken the form of written messages sent to me by Mrs. Thompson,
recording things that she has heard or seen in a state of trance or
ecstasy, and remembered on waking ; but by far the greater number
have been uttered through the lips of Mrs. Thompson — or, on some very
few occasions, written by her hand — while she was entranced. There
has been very little writing within my observation ; what has been so
written has, with one possible exception, been in the sensitives own
handwriting. The trance utterances purport to come from some spirit
of the dead, who has for the time taken possession of the medium's
person. I have, as I have said, received communications from three
such personalities, Nelly, Mrs. Cartwright, and a personal friend whom
I have called Mrs. B. The characteristics of the respective personalities
are not very marked ; all bear strong resemblances to that of Mrs.
Thompson herself. The actual voice is hardly to be distinguished
from hers, the words and phrases, so far as they are in any way
distinctive, are such as she herself uses in the normal state ; in fact,
regarded as a piece of dramatisation, the performance is not striking.
But, in spite of the absence of distinct traits, there is a marked indi-
viduality about each of the three personalities which makes it impossible
to confuse them with one another or with Mrs. Thompson. It is no
more possible to mistake Nelly for Mrs. Thompson, or Mrs. Cartwright
for either, than it is to mistake one living person for another. The
first words of Mrs. Cartwright or Nelly, though preceded by no change
in Mrs. Thompson's manner, attitude, or gestures, show instantly
and unmistakeably who claims to be communicating with the sitter.
The characteristics of Nelly are much more vivid to me than are those
of Mrs. Cartwright, but in both cases the general effect on the sitter is
much what would be produced were they in effect what they purport
to be, in the one case a child of Mrs. Thompson's, in the other a former
schoolmistress. In this respect, in my experience, they differ greatly

xliv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. 185

from the so-called Dr. Phinuit, the sole control of Mrs. Piper when I
sat with her. Although the change of voice and manner from Mrs.
Piper to Dr. Phinuit was very much more marked than is the change
from Mrs. Thompson to Nelly, Dr. Phinuit did not produce on me the
impression of an actual independent being with whom it was possible
to enter into normal relations. The two personalities of Nelly and
Mrs. Cartwright, on the contrary, make the same impression as would
two actual human beings with whom one had a normal acquaintance ;
you may like one better than the other, you may know one better
than the other, you may recognise their merits and their limitations,
but it never occurs to you to doubt their independent existence.

The third personality, Mrs. B., cannot be classed with the other
two, as it differs from them in some important respects. Like them,
it is not to be confused with Mrs. Thompson herself, but, unlike
them, it presents so far no unity, no such characteristics as go to the
making of an individual. Not only does it not bear the remotest
likeness to the person it claims to be, but it has at present no
individuality at all. It is something which is not Mrs. Thompson,
which is neither Nelly nor Mrs. Cartwright, which is vague, colour-
less, undefined, speaking with difficulty and hesitation, hardly aware
of its surroundings, unable to answer directly the questions of the
sitter, sometimes apparently unconscious of the presence of one of
the sitters, absorbed in the thought of the difficulties and strangeness
of the occupation in which it is engaged. Very definite statements,
quite impossible to obtain by any recognised normal means, have
been made to me and in my presence about Mrs. B., but they have
been made by Nelly, usually after the departure of the personality of
Mrs. B. herself. This personality has now appeared to me four
times, and each time it has made great advances as regards coherence
and power of expression. It is possible that with time some char-
acteristics of the lady herself might appear ; the name has been given,
the personality is asserted by Nelly to be that of Mrs. B., and its own
statements are throughout consistent with the supposed personality ;
what is at present lacking is just that touch of individuality which
is the distinguishing mark of Nelly and Mrs. Cartwright. The
study of the development of a new personality, whatever be the
explanation of such personalities in the case of Mrs. Thompson, is
by no means the least interesting of the problems presented, but the
material is not yet sufficient to enable me to do more than state tho
elements of the problem, and leave its solution for the future.
The question of the relations of the two leading personalities,

186

Mrs. A. W. Verratt.

[PABT

Nelly and Mrs. Cartwright, to each other and to Mrs. Thompson
is a very complicated one; so far as my own observation goes, I
have not been able to separate into groups the facts known to Mrs.
Cartwright and those known to Nelly. As both these personalities
claim — and seem — to possess the power of learning facts by super-
normal means, this is not remarkable ; where there is a possibility of
the telepathic transference of knowledge in the sitter's mind (to take one
probable source of information) to the communicating personality, it
would be unreasonable to expect that the range of knowledge possessed
by the two personalities should be widely different. Moreover, the
two personalities claim to be in constant communication with one
another, and Nelly sometimes quotes Mrs. Cartwright as the authority
for a statement made bj' herself, so that I have found it quite
impossible to distinguish between the things known to these two
controls. But there is no difficulty in drawing such a distinction
between the knowledge of these personalities on the one hand and
that of Mrs. Thompson herself on the other. I do not mean that
nothing is possessed in common by Mrs. Thompson and the trance
personalities ; on the contrary, I am convinced that occasionally facts
that have been learnt by Mrs. Thompson in an ordinary way are
reproduced by the trance personality, often with correct additions
not known to Mrs. Thompson, sometimes with slight errors or con-
fusion of detail. A clear illustration of this was obtained at one of
my more recent sittings, the statements in which do not enter into
the statistics quoted at the beginning of this paper.

On September 14th, 1900, during an unusually long wait before
the entrancement of Mrs. Thompson, in the presence of the other
sitter, Miss Harrison, I told Mrs. Thompson in the course of
conversation the following facts :

(1) That during our summer holiday, my daughter had had an attack
of chicken-pox, and that she and I had in consequence moved from
our hotel at Baden to a pension 1 at Zurich, where we had been shut
up in absolute seclusion for sixteen days in two rooms, with very little
to do, and that we had occupied our leisure in trying the time-
honoured means of divination by means of the " Bible and the key,"
only that the Bible had been replaced in our case by a paper novel.

(2) That once some years ago I had tried Planchette with a
friend, and that we had written correctly the Christian name,
Elizabeth, unknown to both of us, of a lady who was coming to
dinner; that subsequently, with a view to discovering which of the

1 The pension was a new one ; I did not mention its name to Mra. Thompson.

xliv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. 187

two manipulators contributed the more largely to the result, we
had each read different books while sitting with our hands on the
planchette, and that the words written under those circumstances
by our two hands were the French words under my eye.

(3) That I had had great difficulty in inducing a very stupid
postmistress in a small village in the Grisons to despatch a paper
on Mrs. Thompson's trance phenomena which was to be read at the
Paris Congress ; that the woman would recognise no classification
outside letters but "samples" or "printed matter/' and that when I
finally induced her to send the MS. by parcel post, she could tell me
nothing of the probable date of delivery of my parcel, had never
heard of Paris, and only knew of France that it was "very far
away."

I transcribe from my notes of a later sitting (Dec. 14, 1900)
remarks of Nelly's which seem to me to refer to the above facts;
the reader will note that there are one or two slight errors, such
as would be likely to occur if any one were relating after some weeks
a story that had been once heard. But what is much more remark-
able than these errors is the addition by Nelly of several details
to the stories — details which she had certainly not learnt from
me, which in some cases had been mentioned by me to no one, but
which were correct. I give the account of the sitting as recorded
by me at the time:

Notes of a fitting at 19 Buckingham Street on December \4th> 1900 —
Present, Mrs. Thompson and Mrs. Verrall.

Nelly. " Helen had pimples and sat in a dark room ; I saw her there."
Mrs. V. "Can you tell me about it?"

Nelly. "You had a pink blouse and you read to Helen when you had
it on. There were stairs outside the house when Helen had the pimples. I
watched you going to the Post Office ; what a silly old woman ! Shall
I tell you a story?"

Mrs. V. "Yes."

Nelly. "Once upon a time Mrs. Verrall was in Switzerland and she
wanted to send a round Christmas box. The old woman said, 'I don't
know where Paris is, but it is a long way off.' She would not understand
whether the parcel would get before the birthday. You know Professor
Richet, who sent1 mother the book with the pretty pictures in it?"

Mrs. V. "Yes, I know him."

1 Mrs. Thompson tells me that Nelly's statement that M. Richet Bent her a book with
pictures is not quite correct ; in March, 1900, in his own library, M. Kichet gave Mrs.
Thompson such a book.

Digitized by Google

188 Mrs. A. W. Verrall. [part

Nelly. "It was Professor Richet who wanted it to read."

Mrs. V. "Cau you see what the old woman wore?"

Nelly. "She had a thing round her head, like a poker thing sticking
up. I saw you. You know you speak French well, very ; but she did
so worry that one would think you couldn't speak French."

Mrs. V. "Can you see me in the room with Helen?"

Nelly. " When you opened the window you had to stick a pot hook in.
I saw you sticking it in. It was troublesome."

Mrs. V. "Yes, I had some trouble with that pot hook."

Nelly. "There was a curtain you screwed up and folded so that you
could read."

Mrs. V. " How do you mean ? "

Mrs. Thompson took out her pocket handkerchief and gathered it in
parallel folds on her knee.

Mrs. V. "Where was the curtain?"

Nelly. " There were curtains to the window and the bed ; I can't see
where it was ; the curtain is a separate picture. There was not a comfort-
able chair in the room where you sat and read ; I can see you sitting
like this."

Here Mrs. Thompson imitated a person trying in vain to sit comfortably
on an upright chair.

Nelly. "Helen's eyes were bad and you read to her. What funny
steps those were outside the house ! There was a verandah by the Post
Office where the parcels were ; you seemed to pass a verandah not
belonging to the Post Office. Where was the boy's mother? Why did
she not go with you? She might have read to Helen."

Mrs. V. "Can you see the boy?"

Nelly. "He was rather thin, not like Helen."

Then came two or three discursive remarks about my daughter and
a friend of mine, one of Mrs. Thompson's sitters, then quite abruptly :
Nelly. "Does Frank know about it?"
Mrs. V. "I don't know who Frank is."

Nelly. "Helen knows Frank. He belongs to people who were in
Switzerland and could speak English ; they thought the postmistress
stupid. What a flat look there is at the back of her head ! It is all
put on in a piece ; does she sleep in it ? "

After some more talk about some one mentioned earlier in the sitting,
Nelly said :

Nelly. "You know the willow pattern plates? Well, the house where
you stayed when Helen had the pimples was like that, a sort of squarified
house, not ordinary. The top of the house was like the plates ; like a
serviette doubled into four for 'top-hats.' What made the hook bad was
that the hole was full of rust ; it did make your finger dirty ! It was
rather a rickety place."

Mrs. V. "Can you see any one in the house?'**

Nelly. " There was some one wore a short and round skirt who used to

Digitized by

xuv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. 189

go up the steps with a cap like a Dolly Varden carrying milk on her
shoulders, a thing that went across her shoulders. There were stuffed
birds in the room on the left side of the house where Helen had the
pimples." (She then went through the action of sniffing and said with
great emphasis :) " I did not like the lavatory " (then, as if puzzled), " but
you had Mr. Willgar with you there. What made Helen kiss him ? I
can't fit him in."

Mrs. V. "Can you see any one else?"

Nelly. "Only the boy, Helen's cousin. I like Helen the best Mother
likes you the best, but I like Helen. I saw her when she was by herself.
Did you write with a planchette? You and Helen had something you
were pretending to write in Switzerland, trying as if with a table."

Mrs. V. "Can you see what it was?"

Nelly. " I can see a table with a glass, but that's here " (pointing to
the bottle and glass before us), " that comes in front It was a key and
a Bible and a string."

Here I told Nelly that I had told her mother this, and she said she
might have got it from her mother's mind. She went on :

Ndly. "I have seen you trying with letters not in Switzerland. I
knew you before mother knew you. I have always known the people
who were interested in these things. Ybu know Eliza? Have you got
Eliza ? You got the letters and wrote French ; you went like that" (as if
writing), " and wrote French. You asked the lady's name that was coming
to dinner. I was there."

Mrs. V. "Who else was there?"

Nelly. "No, I could not see."

It will be instructive to take in detail the three points on which
I had spoken to Mrs. Thompson two months before these remarks
were made by Nelly, and see what errors and what additions were
made in the reproduction of them.

(I) The chicken-pox of my daughter appears, the fact of our
being shut up together and my reading to her (a likely guess),
and the divination with the book and the key. But the book has
become a Bible, which I distinctly said it was not The additions
were as follows:

(a) That I had a pink blouse, and read to Helen when I had it
on. I had a pink blouse, but did not wear it in Helen's room ; I
had two completely different dresses, worn one in the sick room and
one in my own room, and the pink blouse belonged to my room ;

(b) That there were stairs outside the house; later these are
described as steps up which the milk woman used to go. The
street outside our house, on to which the window of Helen's room
looked, terminated immediately beyond our front door in a great

190

Mrs. A. W. VerraU.

[part

flight of some sixty stone steps, of the breadth of the carriage road,
which did not extend beyond our house, and all the passers-by went
up and down these steps ;

(c) That when I opened the window I had to stick in a pot hook,
that the pot hook was troublesome, and that the reason was that

x the hole was full of rust, and made my finger dirty. The outside
shutters in Helen's room fastened to the wooden upright which made
the centre of the window frame by two pot hooks fitting into iron
rings on the window frame. I was not able to push one of the hooks
into its hole for the first few days and made temporary arrange-
ments, but after a great storm of wind had destroyed my substitute,
I had to investigate the cause of the obstruction, and found that
the ring was choked up with rust. In clearing it, I tore the skin of
my finger, and had to wash my hands with some care to get out
the rust which had got into the wound;

(d) That there was a curtain, which I screwed up and folded, so
that I could read. There was no difficulty with the curtains in
Helen's room, but each evening, before sitting down in my own room
to read, I used to fold the curtain back by gathering it into my hand
and tucking it behind the peg at the side ;

(e) That there were curtains to the window and the bed. This
was the case in Helen's room ; it is, of course, very unusual to have
curtains to the bed in a Swiss room, but in this case the curtains had
been put as a projection to the eyes of the patient, and any one
acquainted with the circumstances might probably have guessed that
there would be curtains to the bed ;

(f) That there was not a comfortable chair in the room where I
sat and read. This was true, there were only two hard, narrow up-
right chairs, extremely uncomfortable, and I often had to give up
reading to Helen and go to rest in my own room after making many
efforts by a change of position to make myself comfortable ;

(g) That the house top was squarified, like the top of the house in
the willow-pattern plates, or a dinner napkin folded into four. This
is true ; the house, unlike the majority of Zurich houses, stood in its
own grounds ; it was a square house, and on the top of the roof was
a fiat space, considerably smaller than the area enclosed by the house
walls, so that the angles of the lines of the roof ran inwards to a
central platform very much as they do in a willow-pattern plate ;

(h) That it was a rickety place. This was not true ; the window
shutters, etc., were particularly well made, and the iron and wood
work good;

xliv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. 191

(1) That a person in a cap, carrying milk, used to go up the outside
steps. This is not true ; plenty of women in short round skirts went
up and down the steps, but I have no recollection of any milk carrier,
nor do the women of Zurich wear caps;

(j) That there were stuffed birds in the room on the left side in
this house. This is not true ; the room on the left was a tiny office
containing little furniture. At the next place, to which we went from
Zurich, where my husband, usually called by Nelly "Mr. Willgar,,,
joined us, there was the largest collection of stuffed birds I ever
saw in one room, but the room was not on the left-hand side of
anything. In this same hotel of the stuffed birds there was a shocking
lavatory, the only bad one we found in our three months' absence.
Is it possible that by this time Nelly had passed on to the next
place ? It will be seen that she put my husband with us, and seemed
puzzled how to fit things in.

(2) The old story of my attempts with Planchette appears with the
mistake of Eliza as the name written instead of Elizabeth, with the
reference to the language, French, reproduced by the instrument, and
with the unlikely addition that Nelly was present on the occasion.
It will be noticed that Nelly was not able to say anything of the
friend who joined me in making Planchette write.

(3) The story of my difficulty with the postmistress appears ; the
fact that I had a parcel to send to Paris, and the impossibility of
getting from the woman any account of the time when it would be
delivered. It is an error to imply that the language was French : it
was German ; that the parcel was round :' it was flat ; and that it was
going to Professor Eichet : I sent the MS. to Dr. Janet, who was to
give it to Mr. Myers to read; as a fact it was not read, but an
account of its contents was given at the Congress in Mrs. Thompson's
presence by Professor Richet. The following additions to this account
were made by Nelly :

(a) That the woman had a thing round her head, like a poker thing
sticking up ; that she had a flat look at the back of her head, and
that the thing was all put on in a piece ; perhaps she slept in it.
The description is not very definite, and it is difficult to say how
far it really represents what as a fact the woman wore, but part of
it does represent my impression at the time. The postmistress wore
a stiff black lace erection which stood out round her head, and which
from a front view I had taken to be the frill of a cap. I distinctly
remember the surprise with which I discovered when she turned
round, that, instead of there being a knot of hair at the back, what I

Digitized by

192

Mrs. A. W. Verrail.

[part

had taken for the frill of a cap was the edge of a sort of plate, clapped
on at the back of the head like a halo, with no knob of hair beyond
it, as I had expected to see. The erection was flush, with the
actual back of the head, so that it almost seemed to be part of the
head itself, and the question instantly rose in my mind as to what
she could look like without it;

(b) That on my way to the Post Office I seemed to pass a
verandah not belonging to the Post This is true ; on my first visit
to the Post to send off my paper to Paris I missed the regular
entrance and went on to what I thought was the house to which I
had been directed. The people there told me that I had passed the
Post, but could go back to it through a verandah which belonged to
them ; this I accordingly did.

I have dwelt at great length on these trivialities because the
observations of Nelly seem to me to be worth studying in detail I have
no doubt that much of what she said in December was directly derived
from what I had said in September to Mrs. Thompson; but it is
interesting to note that, whether or not we are to allow Nelly's
claim to have " seen " the additions, it seems clear that the personality
that calls itself Nelly has the power of learning facts about the
sitter that have not been communicated nor directly asked for; it
would almost seem as if Nelly's knowledge were just that of a person
who could see a little better than the rest of us, who had the
faculty of going just outside the normal bounds of knowledge, when
her attention had been directed to a particular point This, if true,
is very interesting to those, who, like myself, have made experiments
in thought transference, or " clairvoyance," because in success in such
cases the sensation to the guesser is exactly that of having on this
occasion seen or heard a little better than usual. I refer of course
to cases where it is not possible that the real explanation of the
success is to be found in hyperesthesia.1

To return to the point whence I started, it is clear that the trance
personality does occasionally show knowledge of what is known to
Mrs. Thompson; in some cases no reference is made in the trance
to the normally acquired knowledge of Mrs. Thompson, but it often
happens that the trance personality quotes Mrs. Thompson as the
source of knowledge, for it claims the power of "reading Mrs,
Thompson's mind."

But so far as long and careful observation enables me to judge,

1See article on "Some Experiments on the Supernormal Acquisition of
Knowledge" in Proceedings 8.P.R., vol. XL, p. 174.

xuv,] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. 193

the converse of this proposition is not true; never once have I
found Mrs. Thompson in her normal state show possession of know-
ledge familiar to the trance personality. I have constantly tested
this matter ; I have spoken to Mrs. Thompson as if she knew some-
thing that I had discussed with Nelly, but I have never found in
her any trace of such knowledge. If by accident or on purpose I
have addressed the trance personality as though it were identical
with Mrs. Thompson, I have invariably been corrected ; in fact there
can be no doubt to any one who has had frequent opportunities of
observation that the separation between Mrs. Thompson and the
trance personality is a very real thing to them both and goes very
deep. For the purposes of the statistics at the beginning of this
paper it has of course been assumed that all information given through
the ordinary channels to Mrs. Thompson or any of the trance per-
sonalities is information normally obtained ; but as a matter of fact
it is my belief that abnormal or supernormal means of information,
such as telepathy, clairvoyance, or other faculties, are quite as readily
employed by the trance personalities as the more normal methods.

So far I have written only of the positive side of the communi-
cations through Mrs. Thompson, but no account of the phenomena
would be complete without some comment on what may be called
the negative side, — the failures, the omissions, the apparent un-
importance of the facts told, the lapses, the errors, the want
of continuity and occasional incoherence of the narrative. The full
list of errors in my earlier interviews, as far as I know them, is given
in Appendix A. Probably to this list should be added some of the state-
ments about persons long dead, or otherwise unverified, but the total
number of actual misstatements is not in any case large (see p. 170).

The omissions and the incompleteness of statement are much more
remarkable, and the apparent failure of Nelly to draw obvious
inferences is one of the most marked and interesting features
within my experience. In illustration of this the reader will
observe that I was given many characteristic details descriptive
of my mother-in-law,1 who was said to be easier to get at through
my child than through myself, and yet Nelly was obviously under
the impression that the person described was my own mother. She
never used any expression which definitely committed her to that
view, but was constantly apologising for "Mrs. WillgarV' greater

Failures, Omissions, etc.

1 See App. D, Sittiog 3, p. 228.

194

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

interest in my absent husband and child than in myself, the sitter,
a fact of which the interpretation would have been obvious enough
to any one who had realised the situation. Again, Nelly is often
puzzled by such a common thing as the difference in name between
mother and daughter when, as constantly happens, the name
that she gets at is the mother's maiden name or the daughters
married name. She has several times said in speaking of my
husband, whose two baptismal names, Arthur Woollgar, she hit
upon almost correctly at a very early stage of my acquaintance
with her, that she could not see that he was married, but he
had a Margaret (my own name) and a Helen (our only child's name)
belonging to him. Since Mrs. Thompson in the normal state, as
well as Nelly, knows my name and my daughter's, the inference is
obvious, but it has not been made. It was only some months after
my acquaintance with Mrs. Thompson and during a visit in my
house that Nelly said that " the Willgar gentleman " whom she had
previously described lived in the house, and was the person whom
Mrs. Thompson called Dr. Verrall. As Nelly herself calls me Mrs.
Verrall, the inference again seems obvious, but again it has not been
made. She talks to me freely of "the Willgar gentleman," or of
"Arthur," and she recognises that he belongs to me, but she has
never referred to him as my husband,1 and continues occasionally to
express a gentle wonder why he so often comes into her thoughts
of my daughter Helen and me* To maintain this little device
deliberately would seem to be playing not only a purposeless but an
unnecessarily complicated game; it is only one of many similar
instances where we can see no satisfactory explanation of the motives
of the trance personality and must be content to register the facts.

It occasionally happens that the information given to a complete
stranger is accurate and detailed, as I have myself seen, but more
often in my experience does the knowledge of a person's surround-
ings gradually develop and define itself, so that Nelly's statements
become more precise. If the increased knowledge thus shown were
such as could be obtained by enquiry or other normal means, this
increase of precision on acquaintance would be a very suspicious
circumstance. But in the cases under my observation the facts
stated have often been such as could not be ascertained.2 The case

]In some of the later sittings Nelly has spoken of "your husband," but has
never said that he is identical with " the Willgar gentleman."

9 See the account on p. 179 of the defining by Mrs. Cartwright of the confused
statements made on the previous day by Nelly.

Digitized by

X1.IV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

195

of Theodore and the slippers, already quoted (see pp. 176, 227), is an
instance of increased knowledge on the part of the trance personality
where it was impossible that the medium could have learnt any further
facts. At the second sitting, when I asked about the matter, Nelly
added to her original statement the further facts that the slippers
were worked by me, that they were on canvas, that I had put in
the background, and that I had had much trouble over them. All
these things were in complete agreement with my own recollections,
strengthened by the memories of my father and sister, with whom I
talked the matter over in April, 1899, at Brighton shortly after my
first meeting with Mrs. Thompson. In the interval between April
and July, 1899, no communication whatever took place between Mrs.
Thompson and myself, and there never has been any communication
between her and my family. I had not spoken on the subject to
any one else, so that there was no other source whence she could
possibly have derived information in any normal -way. This is by no
means an isolated case. It should be noted that the additional
details given at the second sitting were known to the living, includ-
ing the sitter, and certainly not to the dead, the limit of whose
knowledge on the matter was probably reached in the statements of
the sensitive at the first sitting. In this and similar cases I am
therefore disposed to attribute the increase of knowledge on the part
of the sensitive either to the increased attention, conscious or un-
conscious, given by the sitter after the subject has been introduced
at a sitting — that is, to telepathy in some form — or to an increase
in the power of the "control," which comes with familiarity, why
or how it is not yet possible to say.

Illustrations of increased knowledge of an ascertainable kind will
be given later, when I come to treat of "suspicious circumstances"
attending these phenomena, and I pass on to other points of interest
of what I have called a negative sort. The incoherence of the
statements made is sometimes very great; not only are the remarks
themselves often fragmentary and hardly intelligible, but they are
occasionally interpolated into the midst of irrelevant matter. When
the person or circumstance thus introduced is distinctive there is no
difficulty in assigning the remark to its proper place; but I have
no doubt that a certain number of statements classed as incorrect or
unverifiable are as a fact statements wholly irrelevant to their con-
text and belonging to some other series of communications. This
incoherence is more apt to occur in a bad sitting than in a good one;
but it is to be remembered that occasionally statements remarkably

196

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[part

clear and correct are made during what is otherwise an unrepaying
sitting. Indeed, one of the most interesting things1 that occurred within
my observation was let fall without any emphasis, and conveyed
no impression of its importance to me at the time — another
illustration, if illustration were needed, of the importance of recording
everything that is said during a sitting, even when the statement
appears wholly unintelligible.

The omissions on the part of the communicating personality are
no less remarkable than the statements; but classification is here
impossible and comment difficult. They may be roughly divided
under two heads, according as the gaps represent facts or the con-
nexion between facts. Under this second head comes the failure,
already mentioned, to draw an obvious inference; under the
former, the constant overlooking by the sensitive of things that
seem to the sitter important, and that are at least as easy to ascer-
tain by normal means as other facts given. For instance, the family
of my husband consists of his father, two brothers, and two sisters.
The two sisters, the father and one brother have been often spoken
of; the profession of the father and brother has been correctly given,
and some characteristic details concerning them, but no mention hat
been made of the other brother, though he is living in the same
town as the rest of the family, and is quite as intimate with us as
any of the others. A direct enquiry on the subject produced the
answer that Nelly could only see one brother, and at no subsequent
sitting has any reference been made to this second brother.2 Instances
of similar omissions could be multiplied ; but the enumeration of them
would do no more than prove, as does the extreme triviality of many
of the statements made, that whatever is the cause that determines
the selection of incidents, it is not the expectation or desire of the
sitter.

The triviality of the incidents mentioned has received such frequent
illustration throughout this paper that nothing further need be said
on the subject. I think that my experience is perhaps exceptional in
this respect, in that I have not myself received any communications

i This is the case 10 in the list of statements unknown to the sitter, which is of
too private a nature to be related (see p. 177).

9 The fact that my husband has two brothers and two sisters appears in the
report of my sittings with Mrs. Piper, and the name of the second brother is there
given. This is not the only case where Mrs. Thompson has showed ignorance of
facts easily ascertainable by any one to whom my family circumstances were of anr
interest.

Digitized by

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

197

purporting to come from intimate friends whom I have lost, and
therefore a much greater number of the statements made to me are
due to the observations of Nelly than is the case with those who are
supposed to be in direct communication with close friends of their
own. At the same time, I have had opportunities as note-taker
of witnessing what occurs in the case of others, and there is no
doubt that the matters of deep import touched on by the sensitive
are few and far between. Some there have been : allusions to deeply-
rooted feelings, and to profound convictions of the dead, unmistake-
able, and, at least at the moment, convincing to the sitter. It is true
that these references to the deeper and personal emotions are unlikely
to be of great evidential value; it is true also that there seems to
be a desire and an effort of the trance personality to respond to the
demands of the sitter, be those demands uttered or unacknowledged ;
and it should be said that what I have looked for first and above
all else throughout my sittings has been evidence of supernormal
faculty. This I believe that I have had, and mainly through the
very details whose triviality I am discussing. If it be true, as I
suspect, that on what the sitter brings largely depends what the
sitter gets, others will probably have had a larger share than I in
the deeper and more stirring allusions to the past and the dead.

Ascertainable Facts and Suspicious Circumstances.

Any attempt to enable those interested in the subject to form a
judgment as to the value of the trance phenomena of Mrs. Thompson
would be incomplete without a notice of what may be called the
44 suspicious circumstances11 connected with those phenomena: in
other words, the occurrences which suggest that normal means of
information play their part in producing successful results. I have
said already that I think it probable that the sources of knowledge
of the sensitive are various, and I think it would be unreasonable to
suppose that among these sources should not be reckoned Mrs.
Thompson's own knowledge or guesses of the circumstances of her
sitters. I might go further and say that it is possible that during
the trance or the transition from trance to a normal condition she
may have some faculty resembling the sharpened sense perceptions of
a hypnotic subject, and so be able to read or recognise by the touch
things that would be outside her ordinary range. Recurrent successes
capable of such explanation would diminish the value of her success,
even where the circumstances seemed unfavourable to any but super-
normal methods of obtaining knowledge, as a considerable margin

198

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[PAKT

must in any case be allowed for malobservation or error on the
part of the observer. Such successes, therefore, might fairly be said
to be "suspicious,'' and in forming a general estimate of the value
of the phenomena, it seems of the utmost importance to see what
proportion of success is obtained under circumstances favouring the
suggestion that normal means of information have been illegitimately
employed.

It will here be necessary to revert to a group of statements that
has been mentioned already in this paper (p. 172), but not described or
analysed, namely, the statements which were correct but were ascertain-
able by normal means, for it is by an examination of these that we are
likely to find evidence, if anywhere, that recourse has been had to
normal means of investigation. In this class I have included all such
statements about the sitter as might be supposed obtainable by a
person desirous of obtaining them, and so I have here included names
and details concerning sitters supposed to be unknown to the sensitive,
if given at any but the first interview. The total number of such
statements made to me during the period to which I have applied the
test of statistics is 51 ; they may be subdivided into the following

classes :

(a) Names connected with sitters whose identity is known

to the sensitive, 14

(b) Facts contained in letters given to the sensitive, - - 7

of the sitter, 23

(d) Facts probably known to Mrs. Thompson, ... 3

(e) Facts that might have been guessed, .... 4

Total, 51

I propose to treat of each of these heads in some detail, that the
reader may be able to judge how far the information given seems to
throw suspicion upon Mrs. Thompson's general methods. I take the
classes above enumerated in inverse order :

Class («). — The four following statements have been classed as things
that might have been accidentally guessed, or as " lucky shots."

(1) A sitter, Miss E. (let us say), was told that a person of her
name, E., was recently dead ; the sitter's name had not been given to
Mrs. Thompson, but this statement was made pretty late in the sitting
after letters bearing the lady's name upon them had been handed to the
sensitive. The fact was correct, but no further information was given

Digitized by

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

199

about the recently deceased Mr. K, about whom indeed the sitter her-
self knew very little.

(2) The same sitter was told that her mother was dead; but this
would be a safe conjecture to make in the case of the majority of sitters,
of the lady's age. Some interesting and correct information about the
mother followed upon this statement, but it is not necessary to attribute
the opening remark that she was dead to supernormal information.

(3) The same sitter was said to have spent her summer holiday in
the company of a dead friend of hers, about whom a great deal of
interesting information had previously been given by the trance-
personality. The sitter had more than once spent her summer holiday,
or part of it, with the lady in question ; but in view of the fact, which
had appeared clearly in the course of the sittings, of the great intimacy
between the ladies, this suggestion is well within the range of likely
guesses.

(4) It was said that a hair cross given to the sensitive had been kept
in a wooden box. This was the case ; but the box was a Japanese one,
and the wood has a peculiar odour, communicable in some instances to-
its contents, though not detectably communicated to the cross. But in
any case such a statement would have a very good chance of being
correct.

Class (d). — These four cases may be dismissed as having no light
to throw on the subject of our enquiry, and we may go on to the
class (d)t of "Facts that were probably known to the sensitive."
These are three in number:

(1) A letter (see App. D, p. 238) that had been given to the sensitive
to read was at a subsequent sitting said to have been kept in three
places: (1) a left-hand drawer; (2) the cupboard of a writing-table,
a cupboard which was fastened by turning a key; and (3) an.
old-fashioned writing-desk. These three places had in fact served
to keep the letter in question, and they were the only places
that had been used for more than temporary purposes in the
knowledge of the owner. It was impossible that the sensitive should
have any normal knowledge on the subject of the first and last
mentioned ; but it was from out of the locked cupboard of the writing-
table in my drawing-room, where Mrs. Thompson had sat during her
stay in my house, that I took the letter, in her presence, for the trance-
personality to read.

(2) and (3) Two statements were made to my daughter in a very
short sitting during Mrs. Thompson's visit to us, in December, 1899,
about a neighbour's child, a friend of my daughter's, namely, that she

200

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[paw

had recently broken her leg, and that after the accident she had gone
abroad. The accident had occurred a few days before Mrs. Thompson's
visit to Cambridge in July, 1899, and during that visit my daughter
had often seen her. My daughter used to visit the child whose leg
had been broken, and it was a frequent subject of speculation with us
all whether the leg would be well in time for the child to go abroad
with the rest of her family. I have no proof that the subject was
spoken of before Mrs. Thompson, but under the circumstances I should
think it very improbable that it was not. I am disposed to regard her
mention of the incident, five months later, as an instance of deferred
memory, like those related on pages 187 foil.

The reader must judge whether any of these pieces of information
seem to suggest that the sensitive was making good use of knowledge
consciously possessed by her ; my own impression is that these were
genuine recollections of what the sensitive knew by normal means,
interpolated among other matter that she did not and could not
possibly have so known. It is noticeable that the description of the
locked cupboard as the keeping-place for the letter was wedged in
between the mention of two other places of which the sensitive had
certainly no knowledge; it was not likely that her mention of it would
be impressive, for even a forgetful sitter would be likely to remember
the circumstances immediately preceding the production of a test letter,
and, ex hypothesi, unless the sitter did remember that the letter had
been in this cupboard, the mention of the fact by the trance personality
would not help to create an impression of the accuracy of the sensi-
tive's remarks. It seems to me much more probable that these three
facts about where the letter had been were known to the sensitive, and
that the difference between them is that in the one case the sitter knew
how the sensitive was possessed of that knowledge, whereas in the
other cases she did not. The two allusions to the accident to my
daughter's friend would have been impressive had we forgotten that
Mrs. Thompson had had opportunities of learning the facts in the
ordinary way, and perhaps some readers will believe that the trance-
personality took the risk of our having so forgotten. But the case is
closely parallel with the one related at length earlier in this paper, and
it is impossible for me to believe in that case that Mrs. Thompson, after
our long acquaintanceship, thought so meanly of my memory or my
common-sense as to suppose that I should be impressed by the not
wholly accurate reproduction of what I had myself told her in the
presence of a witness two months before.

Class (c). — The largest division is (c), facts in the history of a sitter

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

201

or of a close connexion of a sitter, mentioned after identification of the
person described. There are 23 of these. Two of the statements refer
to an incident which has been referred to in this paper, but not related
in detail; Nelly had at a first interview with a sitter unknown to Mrs.
Thompson made some remarkable and true statements about a friend
of that sitter recently dead, whom I have called Mrs. B., but she had
implied, though she had not actually said, that Mrs. B. was the sitter's
sister, and that Mr. £. was still alive. At a later sitting when
further details were given about Mrs. B., the trance personality cor-
rected these two errors. These two corrections therefore have been
counted as true, but as capable of normal acquisition, for there had
been intervals between the sittings during which, if Mrs. Thompson
had identified the lady called Mrs. B., and had made enquiries about
her, she could have ascertained both the above facts ; whether the
correction was due to knowledge so obtained, or to telepathy from the
sitter, or to some other cause, I have no means of determining.

Three of the statements in this class refer to a particular sitter, who
at the time they were made had been identified by Mrs. Thompson and
was known to her. Nelly spoke of Miss Jane Harrison in her presence
to me as being connected with "monuments," and as associated with
the British Museum and the Museum at Kensington ; it was further
stated what her age would be at her next birthday. This also was
known to me after consideration, but not at the moment. These
three facts are all easily ascertainable, and have no evidential or
other value.

Four of the statements in this class refer to my own concerns ; Nelly
said that a piece of hair which I gave her when she was in my house
was the hair of a very delicate baby, so delicate that it "makes
mother's hand cold " ; Mrs. Thompson's hand, which she gave to me,
had suddenly become very cold.1 It would have been easy for any one
to have ascertained that some years ago I lost a very delicate child,2
whose health had been a permanent anxiety to us since her birth. It
would have been as easy to learn that the child was a girl, but this
Nelly had not done ; she spoke of the child on this occasion as Helen's

1 It is perhaps worth noting that on another occasion, when speaking of a person
who had died suddenly from an accident, in full vigour of health, Nelly drew my
attention to the heat of Mrs. Thompson's hand, due, according to her, to the
extreme vitality of the person in question.

2 In the account of my sittings with Mrs. Piper {Proceedings, vol. VI., pp.
584*9 and 641) it is stated that I then had two children, both girls, and that
the younger was delicate.

202

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[PIRT

brother, and on an earlier occasion she had spoken of a dead boj
belonging to me, saying, there was "a little boy at our hoasc
(i.e. dead), he would have been about 11 ; he's not got a nam*
Little Arthur, I call him that. Mrs. Cartwright says he's a liuie
Arthur."1

I pass to the second statement referring to me. At a very early
sitting the sensitive said that there had been an old Frenchman want-
ing to see me; she gave a description fairly resembling my French
grandfather, who died before my birth, but she added that he was
certainly no relation.2 If she had guessed or known that I hid
Frenchmen among the dead " belonging to" me, it would seem
gratuitous to insist that this one was no relation ; the statistical result
has been that these remarks appear as one incorrect statement (that
the Frenchman described was not my grandfather) and one true
ascertainable statement (that an old Frenchman belonged to me). By
a little more skill it would have been easy to avoid the false statement
without showing a suspicious knowledge of the facts, but this is not
a solitary instance of Nelly's apparent lack of skill

The two last statements about my affairs are as follows : After
reading a letter from my mother under circumstances to be related
hereafter (p. 204), she said that there was a French look about tfcr
writer's personality, and I was also told that I had known Mr.
Edmund Gurney. Both these facts are true and accessible. Xo
further comment seems necessary. I quote them here to make the
list complete.

The greater number of ascertainable statements (14) concern my
husband; all but two were made at a sitting on November 2nd, 1899,
when I had taken one of my husband's gloves to the sensitive. I had
done this because I had had through another sitter a few days before a
message to the effect that Nelly saw "Arthur Willgar3 walking on the

1 The child in question was born in September, 1888, and would therefore hare
been just over 11 at the date of my sitting on October 4th, 1899. She died
before learning to talk, but it is incorrect to say that she had no name. With
regard to the words "little Arthur," it is interesting to note that an aunt of my
husband's, to whom reference was made by Nelly during the same sitting, always
spoke of her nephews' children by their father's names, as "little Arthurs, r
"little Toms," etc. This use of the phrase is suggested by the introduction
of the indefinite article before the words at their second occurrence, " Little
Arthur, I call him that. Mrs. Cartwright says he's a little Arthur."

2 See App. D, Sitting 2, p. 223.

3 My husband's baptismal names are Arthur Woollgar, the latter being his
mother's maiden name.

xliv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. 203

old Chain Pier at Brighton shortly before it was blown away ; I don't
think he's married, but he's got a Helen belonging to him."

It would be wearisome to enumerate all the things that the sensitive
said to me about the owner of the glove, whom she called Mr. Willgar,
bat though there was a vague association with him of a " Margaret " as
well as of a " Helen," she did not speak of him as my husband. The
statements made concerned his appearance, his occupation, his health,
and his surroundings as a boy. But it is obvious that such facts as
that he used to be at an " ungreen seaside, a housified place," which
had developed within his recollection to a " nigger seaside," would be
readily enough made by any one who knew that my husband's family
have always lived at Brighton. This is not the place to relate either
the true and not ascertainable things, or the false things that were
given side by side with these. There were not many of either, the
larger number of things said on this occasion being what any one
knowing the facts could know.

Two classes, (b) and (a), remain for discussion, which I have separated
from the rest, as they seem to call for special treatment — facts contained
in letters and names connected with the sitter. I have kept these two
classes to the end as I think that in them, if anywhere, are to be found
the " suspicious circumstances " for which we are looking. Among the
tabulated statements are seven referring to the contents of letters. On
October 5th, 1899, I took to Mrs. Thompson's house two letters
written to me about twenty years before by my mother. I had
selected these two as containing distinctive matter, after reading some
six or seven. The sitting was one of the most unsatisfactory I have
had ; Mrs. Thompson was in great anxiety about a friend who was on
that day undergoing a severe operation. I gave her one of the two
letters, not myself knowing which of the two it was. Mrs. Thompson
held the letter in her right hand, with some of her fingers inside the
envelope. This is the usual plan, as Nelly does not profess to be able
to tell anything of the contents of letters unless her mother's fingers
are on the writing. Mrs. Thompson was sitting in a chair close to me
and facing me, so that there is no question of her having withdrawn
the letter from the envelope, but as I took down in writing in my
notebook sixteen words between my giving the letter and the first
utterance of hers about it, it is possible that the sensitive may have had a
chance to see something when my eyes were on my notebook. I was
aware of the importance of watching and did what I could ; the right
hand holding the letter was hanging down at her side and in the
frequent glances that I gave I saw no suspicious action. Nelly said

204

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[pad

that the words " I am sure " occurred in the letter, that it was a lady's
letter, that the writer was not very well, — not in good health when sfe*
wrote. The words quoted do occur in the letter on the fourth oi
outside page about a third of the way down, so that the letter hvnnz
been folded in three, they were at the bottom of the envelope, not
visible unless the letter was slipped out a little way. They eoaM
of course have been touched by the sensitive. The writer who
not in good health when she wrote, refers to the subject of her health
in one short sentence on the third page, so that the reference could sot
have been seen unless the letter had been taken out, unfolded, and
opened. It is certain then that this sentence was not read by anj
normal method, and if we are to suppose that the success, such as h
was, with this letter was obtained by normal methods, we must, I
think, count the remark about the health of the writer as a lucky shot
It is possible to say the same of the other words, but I have ra«l
through some twenty letters of this writer, and not found the words
"I am sure " in any other letter. I have no experience as to th?
general possession of the faculty of reading words written in ink ot
paper by passing the fingers over them; I have made a few experi
ments, but have not found myself able to feel anything that can be
interpreted, though I have occasionally been able, in the case of
handwritings very familiar to me, to assign the letters to their writer*
Probably the faculty of discerning by the touch varies with different
people.

The second letter, which had not left my handbag, was brought
home, put in an undirected envelope, and endorsed as having been
taken to town but not shown to Mrs. Thompson. It was placed
among a large number of other letters, awaiting periodical sorting and
destruction, on a shelf over my writing table in my husband's study.
There it was when Mrs. Thompson came to stay with me on December
4th of the same year. I had no intention of making any further use of
the letter, but on December 6th, at luncheon, Mrs. Thompson told me
that Mrs. Cartwright had said she would come, and as I had heard
that Mrs. Cartwright made a speciality of reading letters, I thought
that I would be provided with a letter in case she came. Accordingly,
at three o'clock when I went into the drawing-room where the sitting
was to be, I took with me the letter which I had brought back from
London unshown, and a small trinket, and without any concealment
put them both in the cupboard of my writing-table, turning the key as
usual. I did not leave the room till after the sitting, so that the letter
was certainly not read by Mrs. Thompson on the afternoon of the 6t&

xliv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

205

The rooms used by Mrs. Thompson during her visit to me did not
include the study, where my husband sat except in the morning when
Lie was at College. Mrs. Thompson was not alone in the house at any
Lime during her visit, except for about three-quarters of an hour in the
morning of the 6th, when my husband, my daughter, and I were
.all out It will be seen, then, that there was a time when Mrs.
Thompson was alone with the servants in the house, and that the
endorsement on the envelope would have drawn attention to the
contents as a likely subject for experiment, had any one found the
letter. I am not suggesting that Mrs. Thompson found the letter;
I am explaining that I have not counted the accurate statements as
to its contents among those supernormally acquired, since I regret to
eay that the conditions were not absolutely strict, as I had intended
that they should be, and at the time believed them to be.

The letter was held by Mrs. Thompson in the usual way, and
there was no question this time of the possibility of a glance while I
was taking notes, for there was another sitter, Miss Harrison, in the
room, who was at leisure to watch closely what was done, and
saw no suspicious movements.

The statements made by Mrs. Cartwright were as follows. I quote
the contemporary notes :

4< 4 ^^j. May/ — I can't read every word ; the lady who writes it is
troubled about * my dear May's ' overstudying ; there is a great talk about
* changing one's mind ' (after a pause to me). ' It's to you the letter is ; I
had so sensed the name Margaret to you ; that's strange. She either wants
you to change your mind or . . . it's written by a loving mother' (after a
pause, distinctly). ' I cannot help you to find the book.' [I did not under-
stand what she meant, whether she was reading the letter or speaking of
something else. I had no recollection of anything about a book, though the
' general drift of the letter I knew, so I asked :] 4 Are you saying that ? ' (Mrs.
Cartwright weut on) : * You want a book. It's a French book that is lost.
I expect Rosa's 1 account of me makes you expect all to be correct. The
difficulty lies in the time at which it was written, and in the placing and
replacing of it in different envelopes. I get the idea that when it was
written the lady was a little put out at something that had been done, but
wished you not to gather that. Her thoughts are all of love, but she feels
annoyance. * Merrifield ' (pronounced Merrlfield with a strong accent on
the second syllable, of which the ' i ' was made long). This seems to be the
name of a house more than of a person ; I can't get it as signature. I can't
realise how it is, but I feel that I must go to look for a French book,
and yet the letter was written long ago.' Mrs. Cartwright went at this
point, and Nelly returned. She asked forj the letter, and on having it

1 Mrs, Thompson.

206

Mrs. A. W. Ven^aU.

[part

said she could only see 'Lily, not Helen's Lilian.' The next day I told
Nelly that the name given by her from the letter was right, to which
she replied ' Oh yes, Edith.' "

The statements as to facts in this letter appear to be six in aQ,
namely, (1) the state of feeling of the writer; (2) the lost French
book ; (3) the relationship to me of the writer ; (4) the name
Merrifield ; (5) the name Lily ; (6) the name Edith, The facts art
as follows : The letter was written to me by my mother under a
misapprehension as to a proposed course of work for me ; she thought
I proposed to alter my work very considerably, taking on more
than had been planned ; she introduces her comments with the words
" This gives me an opportunity to laugh at you a bit for your
inconsistency." There is no sign of annoyance in the letter, which
ends, after calling me " not-kuow-your-own-mind," with the phrase
"your mother loves you," and the usual signature of initials only,
M. A. M. A later letter, written after my mother had found that
she had misunderstood my letter to her, shows that when she
wrote the earlier letter she had been seriously disturbed, not
to say vexed, at what she believed to be my change of plan.
That later letter was the one which had been given to Mrs.
Thompson in town ; the remarks on this subject were on the
second and third (inner) pages, and so had certainly not been seen
by her in a normal manner. In the letter given to Mrs. Cart*
wright my mother mentions with regret that my sister had recently
lost her French exercise book, that they had hoped to recover it,
but had not done so. The names Lily and Edith do occur in the
letter, the former twice. Four other Christian names occur, besides
my sister's name, Flora, twice. It is noticeable that <( Merrifield,'7
though not the name of a house, is not in the signature; as
uttered by Mrs. Cartwright it suggests to me a sort of " portmanteau *
of my mother's name, which was Maria Merrifield. The trance
personality had mentioned the name Merrifield some time before
as belonging to me, and had then pronounced it rightly, and had
shown the conception she had of the meaning and pronunciation of
it by calling it, as an alternative, Happyfield, so that this curious mis-
pronunciation seems to be wholly gratuitous on the assumption that
the sensitive was normally acquainted with the contents of the letter,
and was guessing that the final M. in the initials stood for the name she
had already used.

As bearing on the question of how the sensitive obtained her
knowledge of the contents of the letter, it is perhaps worth noting

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

207

that the account she gave is not quite what would be expected
from a person who had recently read it and wished to reproduce
its contents. The first thing mentioned in the letter, the actual raison
d'etre of the letter, was that a lamp, which was coming to me as
a present from some friends, had been sent off. Of this no mention
was made by Mrs. Cartwright, though it would seem a definite piece
of information likely to be noted by any one reading the letter with
a view to reproducing its contents. There is another small
error which struck me at the time. The letter really begins— "My
dearest May." This is represented in Mrs. Cartwright's version by
the words, " My dear May," a sufficiently obvious guess, but wholly
uncharacteristic of the writer. This particular form of opening was
never, to the best of my belief, used by the writer; it certainly does
not occur among the numerous letters which I have preserved. On
the whole, however, the contents of the letter are very well and
fully reproduced, and it is obvious that they must in some way
have become known to Mrs. Thompson or to the trance personality.
The reason why I have spoken of this as a possibly suspicious
circumstance is that it is the only letter which has been read in
detail within my knowledge with conspicuous success, and, unfor-
tunately, owing to the circumstances above described, it is the only
letter of which I am unable to say that it is impossible that the
sensitive should have seen it.

It should be noted that I have myself only on one other occasion
besides the above given Mrs. Thompson a letter to read. So far she
has had no success; but as it is possible that something more may
come of this letter later, I am unable to say any more on the
subject here. Other letters have been given her in my presence.
In one case she made incorrect statements about the writer ; in
another some correct and some incorrect; in the third case the
giving of a letter resulted in a very striking and definite allusion
to the death of a relative of the writer. (See page 214.)

I pass on to the last class (a) of true but discoverable facts — that
of names connected with the sitter. Fourteen out of the total of
fifty-one ascertainable statements were, as I have said, names given on
various occasions in the course of the sittings. Three of these
belong to my husband's surroundings, three to my own, and eight to
Miss Harrison's. The three belonging to my husband are as follows :

(1) That "some one called Mary Elizabeth, is it Mary or Marian ?
They say Mary Elizabeth " knew him as a little boy. My husband's
younger sister is called Marian Elizabeth. She was, as I have been

208

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[PAKT

told, called after two aunts, Mary and Elizabeth, a modification of
the former name being given to avoid confusion.

(2) Henry was said to be the name of his father. This is true.

(3) His own name was said to be Arthur Willgar: the latter
name being also that of his mother. This is almost correct. His
second name is Woollgar, which was his mother's maiden name.

Three of the names belong to me ; they are as follows :

(4) Merrifield was said to. be the name of a lady in my family.
The name was given at first thus : " Merrifield, Merriman, Merry-
thought, Merrifield ; there is an old lady named one of those who,*
etc. Later, Nelly said: "Mrs. Merrythought, that's not quite
right; it's like the name of a garden,? and after in vain trying to
give me the name exactly, she said:, "I will tell you how name*
come to us. It's like a picture: I see school children enjoyii*
themselves. You can't say Merrymans, because that's not a name,
nor Merry people." Nelly, later on, spoke of my mother as "Mrs.
Happyfield," or "Mrs, Merrifield," with . indifference.

(5) Nelly spoke of my sister by name, but said that her mother
had seen the name in the S.P. R. Journal a day or two before.

(6) Nelly paid that Vernon was a name belonging to me : it is
the name of the Terrace where my father lives at Brighton.

In this collection of names there is nothing of any special
interest, as the facts could have no. doubt been ascertained bj
any one who wished to learn them, except perhaps in the introduc-
tion of Mary Elizabeth, with the suggestion of Marian. Neither is
there anything the least suspicious in the way in which they were
used, nor in the fact that they were used.

The names connected with Miss Harrison are eight. One of
them was the name of a place where a dead friend had lived ; but
as it was not mentioned till after the identification of the friend,
it has no evidential value, and is parallel to the introduction of
the name Vernon in my case. The other seven were given in two
instalments, three and four at a time, and it is the circumstances
connected with them which may at first sight be called "suspicious.'7

The first interview between Mrs. Thompson and Miss Harrison1
took place in my. house on Dec. 6th, 1899, and I took notes.
Much was said about her mother, and I, who knew that Mrs.

1 At this interview, when Miss Harrison was introduced as a stranger (see
p. 211), among many true things said to her came four names, correctly given.
With these I am not now dealing, as they have been classed among the 90 true
statements that could not have been ascertained by normal means (see p. 172).

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of. Mrs. Thompson.

209

Harrison's maiden name had been Elizabeth Nelson, was constantly
looking for the name; but we did not get it On Thursday, the
7th Dec, Mrs. Thompson left Cambridge, and on Dec. 8th I
received from her, as told to her in trance, the following message :
" Grandfather Nelson tried to speak, and caused a mixed influence.
Elizabeth was dead; Ellen was alive. She gave Ellen's name, but
not in full. She sends her love to Barker or Barker's son, and"
— the rest was indistinct, Mrs. Thompson added. Mrs. Thompson's
letter was dated Dec. 7th, 7.30 P.M.

This message, to be intelligible, needs a somewhat lengthy ex-
planation. Miss Harrison's name, which is Jane Ellen Harrison,
had been given as Jane Harrison at the sitting: not, therefore, in
full. Elizabeth Nelson is her mother's name, and Ellen Nelson is
the name of the mother's only sister, after whom Miss Harrison
received her second name. This aunt long outlived the mother;
but it seems that by Ellen in the message is meant rather Miss
Harrison herself, since the name was said to have been given.
Barkston Mansions is the name of a building where Miss Harrison
had a flat for some years, but she had left it some two years before
the sitting. The message is obscure enough for an oracle, and
perhaps needs as much interpreting; but, leaving aside the doubtful
Ellen, three points come out clearly : Grandfather Nelson, a dead
Elizabeth, and Barker or Barker's son.1 These three names were
known to me at the time of the sitting, as well as to Miss Harrison
herself. I have ascertained that both names and the address are to
be found in earlier editions of Who's Who ? though the latest editions
give Miss Harrison's later London address, Chenies Street Chambers,
and not Barkston Mansions.

But this does not finish the history of Mis$ Harrison's names.
Just before Christmas, about a fortnight after the sitting, I con-
sulted the last edition of Who's Who? to see what information it
actually contained, and I thereby learnt the further facts that
Miss Harrison '8 mother was described as Elizabeth Hawksley, daughter
of Thomas Nelson, that her father's name was Charles, and that among
her published works was mentioned a book on Greek vases, in which
she had collaborated with Mr. D. S. Maccoll. On January 3rd, 1900,
Miss Harrison and I sat again with Mrs. Thompson, and the first
remark that Nelly made was that Miss Harrison's mother was

1 The "she" referred to in the message is a new personality, who tried to
communicate, and who certainly did know Miss Harrison while she lived at
Barkston Mansions.

210

Mrs. A. W. VerwU.

[pah

named Elizabeth, then that she was Elizabeth Hawksley or Hortdy ;
later on she said that Miss Harrison's father was called Charles,
that the grandfather was Thomas Nelson, and that a Mr. Coll, C**l
Maccole, gave Miss Harrison a lot of papers that were not cheques
or bank-notes. The name Barkston was also uttered, and on my
asking Nelly what it was, she said that it was the name of a
house, Barkston Street, Place, Gardens.

Here, then, at this sitting were produced four new names, Hawksley.
Charles, Thomas, and Maccoll, all to be found in Who's Whot and
all recently suggested to me by the paragraph in Who's Whot The
fact that seven names were given after the identification of the
sitter, when there had been time for investigation of her history, is
undoubtedly very suspicious, but no less curious is the division of these
names into two groups of three and four names respectively, cor
responding with the information possessed by me. It would hare
been more satisfactory if the first batch had been given at the fast
interview with the then unknown sitter, but if this knowledge was as »
fact obtained by the sensitive through the book of reference in ques-
tion, it is a most extraordinary coincidence that the names which
were in the book, but which I did not then know — Hawksley, Thomas
and Charles — should not have been given till after I did know them.
In forming a judgment on these facts I think some attention aUo
should be paid to the form in which the word Barkston appears in
the first communication, a written one, from Mrs. Thompson, namely,
as Barker or Barker's son. This does not look like the error of a
copyist but of a hearer, and if we are to suppose that the sensitive
obtained information from a normal source and endeavoured by the use
of such information to impress the sitter, we are bound to admit
that the method adopted was certainly not obvious, that it was, indeed,
so ingenious that it might easily have failed of its purpose ; for it is
plain that the phrase "she sends her love to Barker or Barker's son"
might very easily have been put down as sheer nonsense, when it is
remembered that Barkston Gardens was not the actual present address
of the sitter.1 But it will be said by the sceptic, and it cannot be
denied, that the ingenuity of the fraudulent medium is only equalled
by that of the interpreter of oracles, and the question obviously admits
of no certain answer. The reader must form his own judgment on
the facts.

1 It was, as I have said, the address familiar to the friend who is represented is
Virs. Thompson's message as sending the communication.

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

211

First Interviews.

The best way, as it seems to me, of throwing light on the question of
how the sensitive obtains her information is to examine very carefully
what facts she is able to give at a first interview with an unknown
sitter.1 I have myself only a limited experience of this, as I
have only twice introduced new sitters. One of these two was
Miss Harrison, and it will be instructive to note what facto
were told her before the sensitive had any opportunity of consulting
biographical dictionaries. The other new sitter came to a meeting
which is not included in the sittings which have furnished my statistics,
And with an account of what happened at these two " first sittings " I
will conclude this already lengthy paper.

It was during Mrs. Thompson's visit to me in December, 1899, that
I decided to introduce to her Miss Jane Harrison. I arranged with
Miss Harrison, who was at the time in residence at Newnham College,
to come to my house in the afternoon of December 6th, and to wait
in my husband's study till I should send for hen I gave orders to the
maid at three in the afternoon, after Mrs. Thompson was estab-
lished in the drawing-room for the sitting, to show Miss Harrison into
the study when she came, and not to announce her to me in the
drawing-room. I then told my daughter that when the trance had
begun I should send her from the drawing-room to bring in Miss
Harrison from the study, and my daughter was not alone with Mrs.
Thompson after hearing this. As no other persons besides those just
mentioned knew of the arrangement between Miss Harrison and myself
that she should have a sitting, and as Miss Harrison did not come to
our house or otherwise see Mrs. Thompson during the two days
preceding the sitting, when Mrs. Thompson was my guest, I think
it may be taken as certain that Miss Harrison was, as I intended
she should be, a wholly unknown stranger.

When the trance had well begun and I heard the bell
ring, and so knew that the visitor was in the house, I sent my
daughter away, and Miss Harrison came silently into the room and sat
on a sofa at a little distance. Mrs. Thompson had been informed
that a new visitor was to come, and that the visitor was a lady. She
had expressed some anxiety lest it should be a lady whom she already
knew and with whom she had not had a successful sitting, and I had

1 For this purpose I do not count myself as an unknown sitter. Mrs. Thompson
knew my name when I first met her, and it was then understood that I was to have
a sitting some day.

212

Mrs. A. W. Verratt.

[part

reassured her, or rather Nelly, on this point. That was all that
had been said on the subject I give the report of the opening of the
sitting from my notes taken at the time, read over to Miss Harrison and
approved by her, and written out the next day :

Nelly (to J. £. H.). " Have you been pouring something out of one
bottle into another, from a wide-necked one into another ? I quite distinctly
see it." (After a short pause.) " I will do that letter."

[Miss Harrison had brought three or four letters in a bag, but had not
taken them out. At this Miss H. gave me one of them in a blank
envelope and said :]

Miss H. " I don't know which letter I've given you."

Nelly. " It doesn't matter " (holding the letter in its envelope). " It
seems like . . . not a happy feeling, Mrs. Verrall; put mother's fingers on
the letter." (I inserted Mrs. Thompson's fingers into the letter.)

Nelly. " The lady is dead belonging to this letter ; she's not Jinny's
relation. Jimmy, Jemmy, Jenny. The one that writes the letter has a
strange influence. It's a man's iufluence in a woman's mind, there are
echoes of a man's thoughts. I don't know whether a man wrote it."

Nelly then invited " Jinny " to come nearer, which Miss Harrison did.

Nelly. " I can see you talking to Mrs. Sidgwick ; you are one of the
talkers at Mrs. Sidgwick's house. You have not got a mother. Your
mother is at our house ; she thought : ' Jinny.' Your mother died and
some one else in the same year."

Miss H. " It was a long time ago."

Nelly. " It makes me feel sad. After your mother died something cheery
happened, a success, but too late for your mother to know. There's a
Margaret associated with you, and Anna,1 Anna belonged to a dead
lady, not old, looks 45 now ; has a smooth face. The lady (Miss
Harrison's mother) had a crape shawl with silk fringe ; I can see it
on ; you have a photograph of her with the shawl, a grand dress sticking
out, with the shawl on cornerways. A lady belonging to you had
a cancer ; you heard about that with other sad things. You've got a ring
belonging to some one, not your mother, that's dead."

Miss H. " I had, but I've lost it."

Nelly. " Did you leave it by the wash basin ? It was lost not in
Cambridge, but further away. Poor thing, she had her head aching, she lay
down a long time, did not die quickly. She has been dead a long time.
She's a bright lady, not a talking lady."

The sitting was a long one and cannot be printed without omissions,
as it contains references to some private matters, and to some other
matter which is incomplete at present and to which it would be
premature to refer. But the above quotation will show the reader
that definite statements were made to an unknown sitter without

1 Not the real name.

Digitized by

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

213

any suggestion from either the sitter or the note-taker, and these
definite statements are almost without exception correct. Thus, as
regards the remark about the bottle from which Miss Harrison was said
to have been pouring something, this conveyed no impression to me at
the time, nor to Miss Harrison. Later on in the sitting, Nelly returned
to the subject, saying, " I see a bottle department, this lady will think
of me when she pours from one bottle to another, perhaps glycerine
(this word was said with some hesitation) ; it's not a scientific depart-
ment." Miss Harrison, who at the second reference to the bottles
had wondered whether Nelly was thinking of a recent visit she had
made to a newly-equipped laboratory at Newnham College, here asked
whether Nelly could see the bottles, and Nelly answered, " They are
glass bottles, one wider in the neck than the other." It was only on
her way home after the sitting that Miss Harrison remembered that she
had during the last two months been regularly making " sparklets," and
so had constantly been engaged in filling a narrow-necked glass bottle
from a wider mouthed one. It seems likely that the word glycerine
was an attempt to give the characteristic word " gazogene," but even
though this word was not given, there can be no doubt that Nelly's
general account is appropriate, and aptly describes what Miss Harrison,
unknown to me, had been constantly doing, and would soon do again.

The next statement concerned the letter given, which was one of
two or three brought by Miss Harrison. * As she said at the time, she
was not sure which letter she had taken out It was found after the
sitting that the writer was a man and was alive. The first statement
made by Nelly was therefore incorrect, and the later remarks are too
vague to be valuable, though the form of the words suggests a gradual
change of impression on the part of the speaker, and apparently a final
inclination to think the writer a man. It is interesting to note that as
neither of the persons present knew at the time which letter the
sensitive was holding, the modification of her view can have been due
neither to thought transference nor to fishing.

The use of the name " Jinny " is very interesting. It was a name
used in Miss Harrison's childhood, and is still used by her family,
but not by any of her Cambridge friends. Later on the name Jane
was used when Nelly was speaking of a recently dead friend of
Miss Harrison's who called her Jane, but Nelly did not at first seem to
realise who Jane was ; she had called the sitter Jinny, and suddenly
said, after describing the dead friend, u who was Jane ? She's
associated with the lady (i.e. the dead lady), it's not her name ;
Jane was a sorry lady because this lady died." Again a few

•214

Mr*. A. W. VerralL

[part

minutes later she turned to me and asked me whether I called Miss
Harrison Jinny, a name, she said, which was nicer than Jane.

The sensitive correctly stated that Miss Harrison's mother was dead,
and there is in the possession of the eldest daughter a framed minia-
ture showing Mrs. Harrison in a dress with crinoline and a fringe* 1
shawl worn " cornerwise." The two names, Margaret and Anna,1
have associations for Miss Harrison, and the description of the lady to
whom " Anna " belonged is accurate as far as it goes. The name of the
lady was not given by Nelly in connexion with her, but almost immedi-
ately after the short description of this lady, whom I have called Mrs,
B., Nelly mentioned the surname in a form very usual with her when
she has a fact to communicate of which she does not apparently see

the precise significance. She said, " What's B ? " No answer

was made, and she went on to mention the Christian name and
surname of the lady's husband, also dead, but dismissed them as those
of the friend of a former sitter. This former sitter was well acquainted
with Mrs. B. and with her husband, and had, in fact, received from
Nelly some months earlier a message purporting to come from Mr. R,
whose Christian and surname were mentioned by Nelly. There would
have been no reason for Mrs. Thompson to think it likely that Miss
Harrison and the former sitter would have acquaintance in common,
even had she known Miss Harrison. As a fact Nelly spoke in Miss
Harrison's sitting as though* the husband were dead, and she did not
give any name to the wife; but that in some inexplicable way the
trance personality was aware of the name is, I think, shown by the
otherwise motiveless introduction of the surname and husband's full
name, though she dismissed them as inappropriate on this occasion.
At this sitting, in close conjunction with a description of Mrs. R,
came the mention of her husband's name, though it was not till a
subsequent sitting that Nelly completed the identification and recog-
nised that the Mr. B. of one of her sitters was the husband of
the lady described to Miss Harrison at this first sitting with her.

It is true that the owner of the ring which had been lost died after a
lingering illness, of which one of the most marked and distressing
symptoms was constant severe headache.

The most striking incident in this sitting has been briefly referred to
earlier in this paper. It also relates to Mrs. B. One of the letters
brought by Miss Harrison (see page 212) was given to the sensitive,
who instantly spoke of the loss sustained by some relatives of the
writer, and went on to give a description of the dead lady and of the

1 Not the real name.

XLIV.]

Trance Pltenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

215

circumstances of her death, which made the identification beyond dispute.
The letter was not written by the dead lady herself, but by a relative,
and this fact was apparently recognised by Nelly, for she said to me
in reference to the letter contained in the envelope which she held in
her hand, " Mrs. Verrall, a live person's letter won't get me on to a dead
person."

Later in the same sitting it was correctly stated that Miss Harrison
had come to my house from Newnham College, and an additional
description was given, in order that we might not think Nelly was
"only guessing," which correctly determined in which of the three
Halls Miss Harrison was living.

The full name, Christian and surname, of a lady who had already been
spoken of to me by name at an earlier sitting as a friend of mine, was
mentioned by Nelly as one whom " this lady " (Miss Harrison) knew
all about, and in the few words that followed Nelly seemed to us both
to describe accurately the relations between the lady named and Miss
Harrison. The lady was a College friend of us both, but more
intimate with me.

In this first sitting, then, with Miss Harrison, a stranger, introduced
under the conditions described above, names were given and incidents
related, which warrant, in my opinion, the assertion that Mrs.
Thompson showed herself possessed of knowledge not normally
attainable. The same thing occurred in the case of the other sitter
whom I introduced in December, 1900, also under conditions-
precluding the possibility of previous investigations by the sensitive
into his antecedents.

I bad arranged with Mrs. Thompson to bring a friend to a sitting on
Monday, December 17, 1900. I was to meet Mrs. Thompson in town and
go with her to the rooms of the Society in Buckingham Street, at 2.3fr
o'clock. The sitter was to come to the rooms not before three and
knock at the door without entering, to inform me of his arrival, a6
I was anxious that he should not enter until the trance had begun.
No one but the sitter, myself and my husband knew who it was that I
proposed to introduce. The arrangements were carried out as planned.
After Mrs. Thompson had become entranced, I brought the sitter into
the room, where he took up a position behind a screen. It was
impossible that Mrs. Thompson should have seen him. The early part
of the sitting was fairly good; the sensitive correctly described the
state of health of the visitor and his habitual occupations. I gave her
in succession two objects which he handed to me, a pair of sleeve links
and a gentleman's ring. She at once asked for the tie which belonged

216

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[PAKT

to the ring, and added that the tie was black and that it belonged to
the gentleman then sitting behind what she resentfully spoke of as
" that umbrella.'1 The ring had, as I found afterwards, been taken of
the black tie worn by the sitter to give to the sensitive, but there was
nothing to show that it had been so worn. I suppose it is possible
that the movements made in thus removing it may have been audible to
the sensitive, but I do not see how the colour of the tie could have
been discovered even by hyperesthesia.

There seemed throughout the interview a considerable confusion
between the affairs of the sitter and my own. This was perhaps
due to the perplexity introduced by the new condition,1 as it has
not occurred to anything like the same extent in other cases within
my experience. Nelly seemed restless and anxious, and passed from
topic to topic much more rapidly than is usual with her. It was
difficult to analyse her somewhat discursive remarks, but undoubtedly
things were said that were appropriate to the sitter's friends and
other things that referred to mine. There was, however, a con-
siderable amount of unidentifiable matter.

At the end of an hour, as we had arranged, the sitter came out
from behind the screen, and from that moment things went much
better. Nelly expressed regret, as the links were handed back, at
not having been able to "get anything" about them. She added:
" I should like something belonging to the links : there's a little hair
chain belonging to them." The sitter replied that he had not got
that, and could not find or bring it. Nelly went on to describe it
in some detail : it had, she said, " little rounds on, round gold things,
that used to move up and down." The sitter has since informed
me that the hair chain, belonging to the owner of the links, had
gold rings upon it at intervals, but that they were not moveable.
Nelly further said that, in default of the chain, she would like the
u pencil, with separate leads to be fitted in, not an ordinary pencil
like that (taking up a wooden pencil from the table) ; you put the
leads into it separately." She went on to say that there had been
a difficulty about getting leads to fit the pencil. It is true that the
sitter possesses a gold pencil case that had belonged to the owner
of the links and the hair chain, and that he had had considerable
difficulty in obtaining leads that would fit it. He writes to me that
4i after she had mentioned the chain, which I had up to that moment
entirely forgotten, I was not surprised at her mentioning the pencil
«ase, but was rather surprised at her reminding me of the difficulty
1 The sitter has been visible to Nelly in all my other sittings.

Digitized by

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

217

that I had had in getting leads to fit it.11 Nelly further said that
the same person "had a box with compasses in." This statement
is also correct. She mentioned no other articles in connexion with
the links.

Now, I think that any impartial reader will admit that the cir-
cumstances related above are very remarkable, and even if they
stood alone, would go far to substantiate the claim of the sensitive
to the possession of supernormal knowledge. A stranger gives to
the sensitive a pair of gold sleeve links that had belonged to a
friend who died out of England, and who had certainly never met
Mrs. Thompson, no one but himself knowing what article he intended
to bring ; the sensitive tells him of three other articles belonging to
the owner of the links, a hair chain with moveable gold rings, a
pencil case to which there had been difficulty in fitting leads, and a
box containing compasses, — all which articles did, as a fact, belong
to the owner of the links; she makes no mention of articles which
he did not possess; the description of the article? is definite, and
with the exception of the moveabiiity of the rings, entirely accurate.
Without propounding any theory as to how Mrs. Thompson's trance
personality obtained this information, I think that we are justified in
attributing it to no method hitherto recognised as normal.

I have now presented all the facts and all the observations which
I have so far been able to record concerning the phenomena occurring
in the case of Mrs. Thompson. I have taken especial pains to draw
attention to the failures and shortcomings, as well as to the suc-
cesses, which I have personally observed. In particular, I have
collected together for purposes of comparison a little group of
circumstances, which, did they stand alone, might seem to suggest
the illegitimate employment of normal means of acquiring informa-
tion, though I wish here to repeat emphatically that throughout the
whole course of my acquaintance with Mrs. Thompson, no single
suspicious or even doubtful incident has come within my knowledge.
This group of facts must be judged, not in isolation, but in its
relation with other groups; indeed, the whole of the phenomena
recorded by me must be regarded as merely part, and not a very
large part, of the general evidence that has been collected.

It is not my intention in this paper to express any opinion
on the general character of the phenomena presented by Mrs.
Thompson. To do so would require a more intimate acquaintance
thao I have with the records of other observers of this sensitive,

218

Mrs. A. W. VeivaU.

[PAHT

and would need deep and wide knowledge of the results of
similar experiments with other trance mediums; it would demand
a training and experience, not to mention other qualities, to
which I have no claim. All I have here attempted is to give
a full account of the phenomena occurring under my personal
observation. My attempt at classification is an endeavour to make
the details easier to follow, and is made rather with the hope of
enabling the reader to grasp these details than of suggesting any
theory for their explanation. That Mrs. Thompson is possessed
of knowledge not normally obtained I regard as established beyond
a doubt; that the hypothesis of fraud, conscious or unconscious or
her part, fails to explain the phenomena, seems to be equally
certain; that to more causes than one is to be attributed the
success which I have recorded seems to me likely. There is, I
believe, some evidence to indicate that telepathy between the sitter
and the trance personality is one of these contributory causes.
But that telepathy from the living, even in an extended sense of
the term, does not furnish a complete explanation of the occurrences
observed by me, is, as readers of this paper will have noticed, my
present belief. More than this I do not feel warranted in saying
until further evidence has been obtained : it is to the records of
other observers and to the accumulation of the experience of different
sitters that we must look for the material to enable us to judge what
further causes are at work.

A (Fulfilled — True).

(1) That Nelly would be talking at twenty minutes to ten the

B (Not Fulfilled — False).

(1) That A.1 would have a cough in the winter of 1899-1900.

(2) That B. would be told by a friend of a great scandal or

1Many of these statements will be found in the reports of sittings quoted or
printed in App. D, often with the names in full. For brevity the names are
here, as well as in App. B, represented by consecutive letters of the alphabet.

APPENDIX A.

LIST OF PREDICTIONS.

next evening.

misfortune at C.

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

219

(3) That the weather would be fine during Mrs. Thompson's

visit to Cambridge in December, 1899, and that she would
bicycle while she was there.

(4) That a short lady in spectacles would come to see Mrs. Thomp-

son on a specified day.

(5) That D. would have a journey to the North on a sad errand.

(6) That Mrs. Verrall would go North before going abroad in the

summer of 1900.

(7) That there would be another " big dreadful event" in the war,

worse than the disasters of December, 1899.

(8) That £. would never recover completely after a certain illness.

(9) That F. would suffer from a specified disease before a specified

C (Unfulfilled — Neither True nor False).

(1) That three persons (named) would meet.

(2) That H. would die " before very long."

(3) That soon after the death of H. a specified event would occur.

(4) That J. would reach above a specified standard in a specified

examination.

(5) That somebody connected with K. would be poisoned.

(6) That L. would suffer from a specified failure of the senses as

Note on the above. — Several of the above seem hardly to be predic-
tions in the ordinary sense of the term, but as they refer to the future,
I have had to classify them as such for the purpose of the statistics of
this paper ; my own impression is that when the trance personality has
an undefined impression of something concerning the sitter, the
expression of that feeling is apt to take the form of a vague statement.
Sometimes this is negative in form, as " I don't mean such and such a
thing," where the "such and such a thing," though apparently unintel-
ligible to the speaker, has a perfectly definite and appropriate meaning
to the sitter who knows the whole of the facts (see p. 214). Sometimes
the form is interrogative ; Nelly may say " Do you ever do so and so ? "
the fact being that the action described is appropriate to some one to
whom the sensitive has been referring, but not to the sitter. Some-
times, as in those cases classed as predictions, the trance personality
seems to use the prophetic form to convey information of which she
has no clear knowledge. For instance, in case (B) (5) it was not
likely, nor has it happened, that the lady " D." would go to the North

age.

old age approached.

220

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

on any errand, sad or otherwise. But it was true, though unknown to
Nelly, that her old home had for years been in the North, and, u
might be expected, she had gone North more than once "on ad
errands " ; and so " going North on a sad errand " was a description
had it referred not to the future but to the past, which would hw
been applicable to the lady in question. In case (B) (8) Mr.
Thompson knew of " E.'s " illness, and it is possible that the remark
that he would never completely get over it, might be only the expra-
sion of her feeling that his recovery was not proceeding rapidly ; on
several occasions I have found that the trance personality takes t
depressed view when there is any question of illness. In cas*
(B) (9), where it was stated that "F." would suffer from a specified
disease before a specified age, two statements were in fact made,
one that UF." would have a certain trouble with his health, and
the other that he was not yet 50 years old. The sensitive hid
more than once referred to the health of *'F.," saying, what was
not correct, that he suffered from a particular weakness; sbc
had also expressed her conviction that he would not believe that this
was the case, and finally the remark was made, here classed as *
prediction, "'F.' is not fifty yet, he will not laugh so much at the
health trouble when he is fifty." " F." as a fact was not 49 when this
was said ; he is now past fifty, but has had no symptoms of the particular
health trouble mentioned ; thus this remark, if it is to be regarded as a
prediction, is not fulfilled; but if it is only a circuitous way of mention-
ing "F.V age, it is a correct statement of an ascertainable fact, and
has for purposes of these statistics been counted under that head.
It is worth noting in this connexion that at the time these remarks
were made by the sensitive, the sitter was suffering from an attack of
pain due, as was subsequently determined by medical advice, to the
particular health trouble wrongly ascribed by the sensitive to the
sitter's friend, " F.w

APPENDIX B.

TABLE OF STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE PAST OR PRESENT
WHICH ARE FALSE, CLASS F (see p. 169).

(1) That A. was at the time poorly.

(2) That B. had recently painted a head.

(3) That C. had had a specified accident.

(4) That D. used to wear a particular kind of cap.

Digitized by

XI.1V.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

221

(5) That E. had suffered from a specified disease (see App. A.,

case (R), (9) and note).
<6) That F. was fond of boating.

(7) That G. had lost a boy who would have been eleven years

old when the statement was made.

(8) That a certain coat contained an unused railway ticket.

(9) That H. was associated with a specified town.
{10) That in I.'s house a fair-haired servant was ill.
{11) That J. 's mother had a living son.

(12) That R. had gone abroad (true) by a specified route (false).
{13) That a friend of L.'s had died of a specified disease.
{14) That there was a person called L. M., a relative of Miss M.
(Miss M. was known to the sensitive.)

(15) That N. had a third child (she had two only).

(16) That a certain brooch was connected with a specified name.

(17) That 0. was a great skater.

{18) That a person called P., and described in detail, was intimate

in a specified house.
{19) That a given letter had been written by a person of such and

such a character.
(20) That a given book had belonged to the owner's mother.
{21) That 0. had a dead brother.

(22) That a certain recipe contained a specified ingredient.

(23) That R. had a specified trick of manner.

(24) That S. was a sister of T.'s.

{25) That U.'s name was V., or something like it.

(26) That W. was dead.

(27) That X. had at a definite date been on the point of

visiting Y.

{28) That a person of a specified type was at the sitter's house on

the day of the sitting.
{29) That Z. had no brother.

(30) That an old man of a specified nationality was a friend and

not the grandfather of the sitter.

(31) That in a box already previously mentioned by the sensitive

was a specified article.

(32) That A1, had made a specified article for the sitter.

(33) That a certain room had curtains of a specified colour.

Note on the above. — Of these 33 incorrect statements, 23 were known
to the sitter at the time to be false, 10 were discovered to be so after

222

Mrs. A. W. Ven-dll.

enquiry. Nos. 7, 21, 24, 26 were subsequently corrected without
suggestion from the sitter ; Nos. 7 and 21 refer to the same event,
" G. " being the mother of " 0.," and appear consequently as two
false, but (after correction) as one true statement. The child's age was
correctly given. This incident is related in detail on page 201. No.
29 was indirectly corrected by the giving of a description of one of the
two brothers of " Z." No. 24 was corrected directly at a later sitting;
so were Nos. 15, 25, and 26, the right name being given in case
25. The first attempt at the name, which it was quite impossible
for the sensitive to have known, was not wholly wrong ; it was as if a
name had been said to be Ernestine, when it was, as a fact, Emmeline.
But as these corrections were not made until after the series of sittings
which have furnished the statistics for this paper, they do not appear
among the correct statements. No. 3 was in agreement with the
suggestion of a doctor who had recently seen " C," a suggestion known
to " C/s " wife, the sitter, but was not, so far as is known, true, In
No. 16, the name was not very unlike, Vernon for Ventnor. As to
No. 28, one of the inhabitants of the house expected a visitor answering
to the description on the day in question, but the visitor did not come
The sitter knew nothing of this expectation. No. 30 is classed as a
false statement. The sitter had no old friend of the specified
nationality, but her grandfather, dead before her birth, was of the
nationality in question, and answered generally to the personal
description given. His influence was said to be 1 * like that of a
grandfather," but even when the sitter suggested that he probably
was her grandfather, the trance personality refused to accept the
suggestion.

APPENDIX C.

CLASSIFICATION OF UNIDENTIFIED OR UNVERIFIED
STATEMENTS, CLASS G (see p. 169).

(1) Too vague to be enquired about, 36

(2) Names conveying no meaning to sitter,- - - - 11

(3) Definite statements about persons dead long ago, or

otherwise unverifiable, 9

(4) Definite statements as yet unverified, 8

Total, 6*

Digitized by Google

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

223

APPENDIX D.

CONTEMPORARY RECORDS OF SOME OF THE SITTINGS
REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING PAPER, WITH
EXPLANATIONS AND COMMENTS.

At Cambridge ; present, Mrs. Thompson, Miss Johnson, and Mrs. Verrall.
The notes were taken during the sitting by Miss Johnson.

(Mrs. Verrall comes in, and Nelly complains of her not coming sooner.)
(I)1 Nelly. "Old Frenchman was waiting for you."
Mrs. V. " Shall be delighted to see him."

Nelly. " Had he a ... he was like . . . not uncle, or mother, or any rela-
tion—old when you were little girl — he liked little girls, was friend of all
people — influence on your family like that of a grandfather, but he was not a
relation. Not like a Frenchman — was gray — no beard — his ears rather
large, rather long."

Mrs. V. " Yes, yes."

Nelly. " Forehead rather high."

Mrs. V. " I think he was a relation, wasn't he ? "

Nelly. " No, you all made a fuss when he came, like for visitors."

Mrs. V. " I thought he was like relation I hadn't seen."

Nelly. " Was one of wise men, knew a lot of things, Marie belonging to
him. What makes you. . . . You speak good French, Mr. Myers said so,
but there seems a great Frenchiness about you, Louise too, all French

(2) Mrs. V. " I have nothing belonging to French people here."

Mrs. V. here gave Nelly a little hair cross.

Nelly. "Where's the black velvet that this was on ?"

Mrs. V. " Fve never had it ; it used to be on black velvet, but I never

Nelly. " This is feeling of long way off — not anybody died in Cambridge,
but long way off."

Mrs. V. " Yes, more difficult for you to find."

Nelly. "Feeling of lady with fair hair- parted — and clear face — not
coloured face,, but clear. Hair drawn round like this " (drawing her own
hair round her ears to show what she meant).

Mrs. V. "Yes."

Nelly. "Had lot of Homerton lace and Maltese lace — rather prim about
her lace — not so old as the old-fashionedness of her."

1 The record of the sitting has been divided into numbered sections for convenience of
reference in the comment that follows.

Sitting 2. July 27th, 1899.

about."

had it3

Mrs. V. "Yes.:

224

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[part

Nelly. a She didn't care what people thought of her. Her writing slant-
ing to right, upright and clear — great example to other people — don't get
name with it. Feeling as if she had an operation — not cancer or any great
thing, but something got into her, into her hand, some small thing, was
opened and got out — somebody can find out. There's Christopher belonging
to it — connected."

Mrs. V. " Not sure, but think there is."

Nelly. "One of the come-downs from this was Parliamentary— had some
disappointment about Parliamentary. Don't let them work too hard at It
Don't let Helen work too hard at what she started — something new she's
started — if she does, she'll have to stop — other things don't hurt her sr>
much. Have you got something else belonging to the same ? "

Mrs. V. "No."

Nelly. " This has been in wooden work box, not a jewel case with velvet'
Mrs. V. "Yes."

Nelly. " In that box little ivory carved thing."
Mrs. V. " Two or three other things in box, not ivory."
NeUy. " Well, bone, or white, pearly something — I want to go out of box
into house where the box is."
Mrs. V. " It's been a long time in that box."

(3) Nelly. " Adolphe, Adolphe, he was like Lebas," spelling it, ** some-
body years ago in France that was connections. Feeling of people is like
that " (sitting very upright) ; " they never gave way to excitement ; it was
like primness personified. Don't know if it was widow, but had white frill
in front, quilling. Although she was prim, she was delicate — afraid of cold
— rather shrinking — liked hot water bottles and things to wear in bed and
all those wrapping up things."

Mrs. V. "What about operation ?"

Nelly. " Something that rau in — like crochet hook or needle — red -faced
man — clean shaven — that took it out."
Mrs. V. "Quite likely, — the lady is closely connected with me."
Nelly. " Yes, but that won't help me."

(4) Mrs. V. " How about Theodore and slippers ?"
Nelly. " You cobbled those slippers."

Mrs. V. "Yes."

Nelly. " There were animals on canvas, and you filled it in."*
Mrs. V. " Yes, I talked it over with my Bister after seeiug you. ..."
Nelly. " They'd got their heads ou, and you filled in the bodies,"
Mrs. V. "Yes."

Nelly. " You did it all the wrong way first, and had to do it over again."
Mrs. r. " Yes, I talked it over with my sister, and then we remembered
all about it."

Nelly. — " And now you remember more than you did before."

Digitized by

xliv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

225

(5) Mrs. V. "[It was] Needle, not crochet hook, that ran into the
lady."

Nelly. "Can see the doctor more than person. Only sort of cakes she
had . . . was so fond of sponge cakes."
Mrs. V. "Fingers?"

Nelly. " No, not fingers, like those sponge cakes you give to a child."
Here there was a short interruption as a visitor entered the room.
Nelly. "Somebody belonging to you very brilliant musician — more than
you — got a inetz voice."

Mrs. V. " Mezzo soprano ? "

Nelly. " Yes. Can sing those low notes very nicely. That music gave this
one great pleasure — happiness. Prim one used to sit and hear people talk ;
everybody liked her because she was such a good listener.

" That doctor that had the needle had an accident with his carriage — in
connection. with his carriage ; he was not hurt. She remembers it. Linton,
Linton — that doctor got somebody at Lynmouth or Linton — that lady knew
about it"

(Here Miss Johnson went away for a few minutes and the notes were
taken by Mrs. V.)

(6) Nelly. " Dead boy in charge of the lady, hardly born, but did live.
Hear about your mother, knew Helen, Helen hardly knew her."

(Here Miss Johnson came back and took notes.)

Nelly. " Like an old English lady that liked to talk French — Frenchman
that was her father. Dr. Arthur Myers knew this old lady."
Mrs. V. " Which ? My mother ? "

Nelly. " Yes. Do you know where she is ? Seems as if she knows George
Eliot — in that group, and when I talk to Mrs. Sidgwick or you, Six Mile
Bottom comes. Seems mother did take interest in boat race — liked to know
Cambridge boat race people. She would sit in her prim way and like to
know — not gossip, but liked to go and hear all news she couldn't go and look
for herself.

" Feeling with her of bad cough, but not asthmatical — sharper, not like
bronchitis, but little shrill cough — not phthisis — had two great . . . funny
how she does her mouth — like way of pulling mouth up (pulling her mouth
in and together) as if listening — like prim way of putting her mouth. Very
fond of pair of velvet boots."

Mrs. V. "Yes, very."

Nelly. " She's just shown me them — red stuff— flannel— there — with velvet
and with loop in elastic boots. She liked little silk apron — with black lace
and silk — elastic and button at side ; it belonged to some one else and given
to her. You'll excuse her wearing white stockings."

Mrs. V. " This is prim lady, not my mother ?"

Nelly. " Yes. Don't mix them. Velvet boots not your mother, but the
prim lady, and the silk apron."

Mrs. V. " Oh, yes, I know the apron quite well."

226

Mrs. A. W. VerraU.

[part

Nelly. "It's like a blackboard, and on blackboard comes pictures, and I
tell you aa they come. Sometimes people come and talk, but sometimes
pictures."

(1) No old Frenchman visited at our house. My mother's father, who
died before her marriage, was French. The description given answers fairly
well to my knowledge of him derived from description and a portrait in my
father's house at Brighton, where Mrs. Thompson had never been. He was
" not like a Frenchman," being fair with blue eyes, he had " no beard," his
forehead was " rather large," but I know of no peculiarity about his ears*
He was not a " wise man," but was a "friend of all people." My mother was
called " Marie," and the name " Louis," though not " Louise," occurs in her
family. Mr. Myers and I had spoken in Mrs. Thompson's presence of the
possibility of my reading a paper in French at the Paris Congress, so that
Mrs. Thompson's normal personality knew that I spoke French. The fact
that my mother's family was French has been mentioned in the report on
Mrs. Piper's sittings (Proceedings, Vol. VI.), so that any one wishing to obtain
facts about me would have had no difficulty in discovering that X had a
French grandfather.

(2) The hair cross was taken by me from a small wooden Japanese box
with drawers ; the wood has a slight scent, but I could not myself detect any
odour about the cross. I have never myself worn the cross except, years
ago, on a watch chain, but it was worn by my mother, who gave it to
me, on black velvet. I cannot identify the lady described ; I was expecting
a description of the lady who made the cross (my cousin and godmother), but
none of Nelly's statements apply to her, except the possible connection with
Christopher. When Nelly spoke of an operation, I remembered that my
cousin had died of cancer, but had had no operation, and as I thought this,
Nelly went on to say " not cancer." For the " small thing" which was <k gut
out " of my mother's foot (not hand), see below (3) and (5).

The statement about the "Parliamentary come down" is wholly unintel-
ligible to me. The remark about Helen's work seemed to reflect very
vividly my own feeling at the time. I had come to the sitting straight from
a talk with some one who was teaching my daughter a wholly new subject ;
we had been arranging for some work to be done during my daughter's
holidays, and I was disturbed at this, and afraid that the subject was too
hard and would take too much time from her proper work.

(3) Adolphe Lebas is unintelligible to me. The " quilling, and hot- water
bottles," etc., suggested my own mother, so I put a question about the
"operation." Owing to my carelessness as a very young child, a needle
ran into my mother's foot. The incident made a great impression upon
me. The needle broke, and part was extracted, some time later, by our
doctor, a red-faced, clean-shaven man. For further details see below (5).

Comments on the above account of Sitting 2.

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

227

(4) This question referred to a remark of Nelly's at my first informal
sitting in April 1899. The note made by me on returning home at 11 p.m.,
on April 5th, was as follows :

" Theodore — not very near— only feature is that the back of his head at
the top is prominent— does not seem the same age as at first — died at the
ordinary age—* old Theodore' — doesn't like to talk — reads a lot — sits always
in the same place by the fire — on the right-hand side- opposite an old-
fashioned horse-hair arm-chair — in a place with bars to the windows— and
cows to be seen — was fond of fishing — wears woollen under his waistcoat,
and carpet slippers with animals' heads worked on them."

Later, I added from recollection the words : w Wouldn't wear patent
leather shoes for the Queen — slippers have foxes' heads, or at least some
animals'."

The most recent death among my relatives was that of a cousin, Theodore,
who went out to Australia as a young man, and died there at about seventy
years old. The mention of Theodore recalled to me my personal recollec-
tion of him, which is very vivid, as a young man, but I immediately remem-
bered that he was an old man when he died. On April 22nd I talked over
with my sister our recollections of this cousin ; she told me that he had been
very melancholy during the last few months of his life, and very silent. We
both remembered something about my having worked wool-work slippers
for him when he went to Australia ; my sister thought she remembered that
there were foxes' heads on the slippers, several small heads, and my father,
when asked, had a vague impression of foxes' heads on slippers as a piece of
childish needlework. I also, on reflexion, recalled that I had bought the
slippers with a pattern ready worked, and had with great labour and much
unpicking, filled in the ground behind them. This was the condition of my
memory when I saw Mrs. Thompson on July 27th, and in the interval
between April 22nd and July 27th, I had not mentioned the subject to
any one. Mrs. Thompson was not then, and is not now, acquainted with ray
father and sister.

It will be noted that on this occasion, without prompting from me, she
added to her first vague connexion of Theodore with carpet slippers that they
had been worked by me, with difficulty, and that I had filled in the canvas,
the heads being already done.

(5) Miss Johnson's notes here have the words, "needle, not crochet hook,
that ran into the lady," and it does not appear certain whether they were to
be assigned to Mrs. Thompson, or to me. They were not bracketed, as ray
other remarks are, but on the other hand, she believes that I was the speaker.
My own impression is that Nelly said, " It was a needle that ran into the
lady," and that I, recognising this as an important correction of the previous
statement (see above, 3) said to Miss Johnson, "needle, not crochet hook," in
order to be sure that the alteration was noted.

I have a vague recollection of a carriage accident to the doctor
and this is confirmed by my father, who thinks that the doctor broke his

228

Mrs. A. W. Verrall.

[part

leg. We know of no connexion between the doctor and Linton w
Lynmouth.

The " cakes " and the " mezzo soprano " are not intelligible to me.

(6) Here there appears to be a transition on the part of Nelly from my
mother to my mother-in-law, who is undoubtedly described later on, I did
not detect this at the time, and as the statements made were for the most
part not appropriate to my mother, I was, as will be seen from my remark*,
vainly endeavouring to clear up the situation, till the vivid reproduction of
a facial gesture and the description of the apron, etc, suggested to me that
the old lady now being described was my mother-in-law, who is in no way
connected with the hair cross, which was the only object held by the sensi-
tive. I comment in detail on the various points :

My mother-in-law's first child, a boy, died at the age of six weeks ; m*
mother never had a son.

My child Helen has only a faint recollection of my mother-in-law, but a
perfectly clear one of my mother.

The remark about the Freuchman is indefinite, but perhaps refers to m*
mother.

Dr. Arthur Myers knew my mother very slightly, but my mother-in-Uv
very fairly well. See below, notes on Sitting 3, No. 7.

Neither lady took any interest in the boat race, though if " Cambridge '
were substituted for " boat race," the remarks would be true of my mother-
in-law.

The description of the cough is appropriate to my mother-in-law, and the
reproduction by the sensitive of a certain way of moving the lips was
startlingly characteristic of her. The silk apron I have often seen her wear,
and I know, from her, that it had belonged to her mother. It fastened with
an elastic and button round the waist, and the movement of the sensitive'^
hands as she went through the action of taking off an apron and folding it
was characteristic. So too was the voice and gesture as she spoke of the
white stockings. My mother-in-law has more than once referred half
apologetically to her preference for white stockings, which she wore long
after they had ceased to be fashionable. I know of no velvet boots worn bj
ray mother-in-law ; the mention of them recalled ray own mother. (See
comment on Sitting 4, No. 9, Oct. 5, 1899.)

At Cambridge ; present, Mrs. Thompson, Miss Johnson, and Mrs. Verrall.
The notes were taken during the sitting by Miss Johnson.

(Mrs. Verrall had brought two objects with her, but did not give Mrs-
Thompson anything till after she had made her first remark.)

(1) Nelly. " Helen's got a grandma's brooch."

Mrs. V. " Not brooch, but coral, that's it " (giving object).

Xelly. " Is that what made that lady ask for what Heleu weared ?"

Sitting 3. July 28th, 1899.

xr.iv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

229

Mrs. V. " She was very fond of Helen."
Nelly. "Yes, brooch."

(2) Nelly. " Seems to me lady belonging to this didn't like Helen having
her frock low."

Mrs. V. "True."

Nelly. " It wanted stretching (more on her neck ?)"
Mrs. V. "Yes."

Nelly. " Can see Helen like little baby — more distinct than her."
Mrs. V. " She was very fond of Helen."
Nelly. "Yes."

Mrs. V. agrees about frock being too low. ,
Nelly. " It was before she died — a long time."
Nelly. " Can see little baby had like little silk boots — not kid."
Mrs. V. ♦'Yes."

Nelly. "They were coloured (*.eM as she explained, not black) like white
silk— not black — shiny as if made of silk."
Mrs. V. "Yes."

Nelly. " There was tall chair, round back to it, not square one — old lady
made cushion to it — to chair that Helen had."
Mrs. V. "No."

Nelly. " She was very fond of working things — used to do that holey work
— when you cut little holes and sew it round — with black leather — black one
side and green the other."

(3) Nelly. " I want to say, not Mrs. 8idgwick, but Nora (i.e. the " Nora "
does not refer to Mrs. Sidgwick)— Waura — Miss Johnson, like Laura."

Miss J. "Yes, Laura."

Nelly (to Mrs. V.) " Was a servant that was good to your mother, but she
called her by her surname, not Laura. Had a gentleman she was very fond
of talking Freuch to, not your husband — he used to wear flat hat, like
Professor Sidgwick would wear — crush hat. Town with very white roads,
like Bath or Cheltenham."

Mrs. V. " Yes, very white roads, I know."

Nelly. "White roads like where Mrs. Myers, — Margaret — Margaret —
Margaret . What does Margaret say ? Stupid, what was it ? "

(4) Nelly. " Seen that some one painted this old lady, and when it was
painted her hair was parted and worn down — got little lace collar and chain
— not like chain that Helen has, but finer."

Mrs. V. " Yes, I can see it in picture if I look."

Nelly. " In picture dress isn't plain surface, but has pattern — wouldn't
know that it was so if you didn't look close."

(5) Mrs. V. "Can you see room it's in ?"

Nelly. " Can see bedroom, but can't see picture to fit it. Old lady belonged
to bedroom — it had watered red curtains — alpaca like and flat gimp on —

230

Mrs. A. W. VerraU.

[part

had four legs to it, four high ones — little table beside her bed that fastened
on, in connection with the bed. There was Louie, too, and Philip, not
Louis Philippe, but Philip separate from Louie. They don't seem very
responsive when I go out to meet them ; rather — in fact, quite — a sort of
religious sense (apparently meaning reserved, reticent). Bather straight.11

Mrs. V. "Separate? Straight?"

Nelly. " She doesn't realise I'm telling you."

Mrs. V. "Doesn't she?"

Nelly. " Have to get at her through Helen, told her how Helen had grown
up into a clever girl, and that seemed to get into her heart/'
Mrs. V. "I see."

Nelly. "This old lady sewed little diaper pinafores — weren't very com-
fortable— like little apron pinafores — sewing them with great pride, like a
string through — not pinafore that went round neck."

(6) Nelly. u That lady — the mother, you know — was active ; when she
came to be ill, it seemed to worry her. She never took life easily, was
always on the alert — always seemed to arrange things — while people were
thinking what they could do, she did it. Was far-seeing. Seemed to have
clever children — one more musical than you, and one could do sketches in
country — not artist like, but could do sketches — some in existence now, in
exercise book with broken corner. In this house, one of those bureaux with
brass handles and things that pull out at the side — old-fashioned thing.
Globe in this house too, like soda-water globe — like what they make soda
water with. It is an indistinct house, very. Old lady got fur cloak,
circular fur cloak, not evening wrap, but useful sort of cloak."

(7) Nelly. " Old lady can't see you, can't believe that you are here."

Mrs. V. " We often used to talk about such things ; she was very interested
iu it."

Nelly. "She was not in this town — like farther away — where was most
stupid old parson — one of those stupid old parsons ! Was a square church,
not a spire. (Pause.) If I could get her to realise you were here, she would
talk freely. I don't worry you, do I ? "

Mrs. V. "Oh, no."

Nelly. " I only want that lady to say something. She had basket like a
knitting basket, that was like shape of canoe— handle there and there — and
coloured band round it."

Mrs. V. " Yes, I have a sort of recollection of it, I can find out"

Nelly. " She wore cuffs, like bead cuffs, with beads on ; not stout hand,
but had cuff on, and then it was very nice. Shall you go to mother's boose
on 14th September?"

Mrs. V. "Don't know."

Nelly. " Think you'll be somewhere where you'll be able to go."
Mrs. V. "Very likely."

Nelly. " See picture of mother with velvet collar on — like sailor collar—

xliv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

231

mother has no dress with velvet collar on." (This seemed to refer to what
Mrs. Thompson would be wearing on September 14 when Mrs. Verrall went
to see her.) " Bur — Bur — Burfield. No, Bertie. What do you say ] Wants
to know who told my mother that she was dead. Doesn't understand that
mother isn't dead ; she'll get to know. Some of the people seem to realise it
instantly, but she doesn't. She knows Dr. Arthur Myers ; he seems to be
trying to explain to her."

Mrs. V. "She did know him."

Nelly. "She may get it more distinctly now. Lady got plain spectacle
case with red marks on, not plain like Miss Johnson's."

(8) Nelly. " Mrs. Verrall, this old lady says she did give Helen a brooch."
Mrs. V. " Don't remember, but daresay she did."

Nelly. "Mrs. Verrall, you are going somewhere north, a norther place,
north of Birmingham ; youll go there when you don't expect it ; there will
be hesitation. It will be before you go to abroad country."

(9) Nelly. "Have you got somebody in your house with sandy hair?
Not like Lilian."

Mrs. V. " I was just thinking if it was like Lilian." .

Nelly. " More goldified — redified — than mother, but not Lilian."

Mrs. V. "Hair down or up?"

Nelly. "Up -not dark."

Mrs. V. " Is it servant — with cap ? "

Nelly. " No, not cap — wide hat ; her hands are freckled."

(10) Nelly. " Can't tell you more about old lady. Have you got anything
else ?" (meaning another object).

Mrs. V. "I've got ring — it belonged to a French relation of mine — has
been worn by other people."

Nelly. " Haven't you got anything to do with prim lady ? "

Mrs. V. " No. I'm not sure who prim lady is ; she had not to do with
hair cross." (See Sitting 2, July 27.)

Nelly. " There was first prim lady and her associations ; then Mrs. V.'»
mother ; prim lady is not your mother. To-day your mother."

Mrs. V. " There is lady connected with gray hair, but not prim."

Nelly. " She has preciseness — not Puritan."

Mrs. V. " I won't try to make out — will wait for you to tell me."

Nelly. " Sad association with the lady of the necklace all the same. I'm
positive she'll come and make friends with mother, and tell you things
through crystal. Before September 14th mother will write to Mr. Myers
and tell him ; there'll be demonstration about old lady, and that'll be cause
that will bring you. It puzzles her because she didn't know mother — that
makes difficulty. If it was through Mrs. Sidgwick (i.e. with Mrs. Sidgwick
acting as medium), she'd know the form. That's what she promised to do.
Will you come if you can to mother's house ?"

Mrs. V. "Yes, certainly.1

232

Mrs. A. W. VerraU.

[PAKT

Comments on t/ie above account of Sitting 3.

(1) When I thought over the statements of July 27th I came to th*
conclusion that at least two definite allusions had been made, to my French
connexion and to my mother-in-law, and so I decided to take with me to the
next sitting on July 28th objects representing both these. Nothing had
been said about my bringing any fresh objects on the morning of July 28th.
Just before going out to see Mrs. Thompson, I asked my daughter for the
coral neglige1 which was given to her by her grandmother during the latter*
last illness, and I took this in a bag. I also wore a ring which had been
given by my French grandfather to his wife. I had my mind fixed on the
idea that if the information of the sensitive were in any way derived from
my mother-in-law she would be sure to think of Helen and her gift, so that
the first remark of Nelly certainly bore directly upon my own thought*,
though the object which she mentioned was not correctly named.

(2) The statements concerning my child's clothes are true. My mother-in
law did not like the low-necked frocks which the baby wore, and used to
pull up the under vest to cover the baby's bare neck. She also often half-
laughingly remonstrated with me for not letting the child wear the usual
woollen " bootikins.w Helen always wore silk shoes and stockings, sometimes
blue, but more often white.

My child had the usual round-backed high chair, but I have no recollection
of any special cushion. I have no remembrance of my mother-in-law doing
embroidery, though no doubt she did, like all her generation.

(3) There was no servant called Laura, nor can the French gentleman be
identified. The town in question, Brighton, has very white roads, a constant
source of annoyance to me, and so very distinctive to me of the town.

(4) There is a portrait of my mother-in-law, at her house in Brighton,
which Mrs. Thompson has never entered. The dress is black, but in alternate
stripes of velvet and satin, producing the effect of a pattern if one looks
■close. There is a lace collar, and the hair is parted and worn down. There
is no chain in the picture, but my mother-in-law constantly wore a long fiue
gold chain, and I thought at the time that this was shown in the portrait.
Helen has a similar, but less tine, gold chain worn by my mother, and shown
in a portrait of her which is in my father's house.

(5) The curtains in my mother-in-law's bedroom were buff. Philip is not
a name in either family. The general description that follows seems appro-
priate to my mother-in-law, especially the reference to the pleasure that her
grandchild's " cleverness n would give her. No diaper or other pinafore was
made by my mother-in-law for my child, as far as we can remember, but
she did once give the child a Holland pinafore which the nurse thought
elumsy and uncomfortable, and which was only worn when the giver was
likely to see it.

xliv.] Trance Phenomena of Mre. Thompson. 233

(6) The general description of the lady is correct ; my husband used to
sketch years ago, but no "exercise book" can be found. There are two
bureaux in the room where my mother-in-law's portrait stands, but no globe.
A gazogene globe stood for many years immediately below the portrait of
my mother. My mother had a circular fur cloak.

(7) Nothing is known of a " stupid parson " ; there was no canoe-shaped
knitting basket, nor plaid spectacle case.1 I have seen my mother-in-law
wearing woollen cuffs with beads worked into them.

The difficulty in getting her to understand the situation, and the necessity
that she Bhould understand before acting, struck me as characteristic. So
did the intervention of Dr. Arthur Myers ; I have often heard him explain-
ing to my mother-in-law the work and aims of the S.P.R. and the effect of
certain experiments.

I was in the country on September 14th, and did not see Mrs. Thompson
again till October 5th ; she then wore no velvet or sailor collar. She had
a sailor collar to a dress she was wearing the next autumn, 1900, at the
sitting of September 14th ; this sitting was arranged at very short notice.
A suggestion had been made by Nelly in May, 1900, that Miss Harrison and I
should sit on September 9th, Miss H.'s birthday. This day proved to be a
Sunday, and so the appointment was made for the nearest day, September
8th. Miss Harrison, however, was not back in England by this date, and I
had a sitting (No. 18) with another sitter. I did not hear till after
the 8th that Miss Harrison was returning on the 13th, and at once arranged
for the first possible day, the 14th.

(8) Helen never had a brooch given her by my mother-in-law. I did not
go " North " before my next journey " abroad," which was in June, 1900, nor
have I been since.

(9) When Nelly spoke of some one with " sandy hair," I at once thought of
a friend of my daughter's called Lilian, whom she had seen, and she at once
added, " not like Lilian."

There was no one with reddish hair in my house on July 28th. But the
next day, when I told my daughter what Nelly had said, she stated that she
had beeu expecting a visit from a friend who answers to the description ;
having reddish, sandy hair, worn up, under a wide hat, and freckled hands.
The girl did not come to the house.

(10) For the " message," see below (notes on No. 5).

1A relative of Miss Johnson's who bad recently died had possessed such a
basket as here described ; also bead cuffs and a plaid spectacle case. *

234

Mrs. A. W. VerraLl

[PABT

Sitting 4. October 5th, 1899.1

At Hanipstead ; present, Mrs. Thompson and Mrs. Verrall alone.

The notes were taken in pencil during the sitting, revised in the evening,
and written out the next day. The words in round brackets ( ) were
added on writing out, those in square brackets represent explanations or
comments added later. Longer comments will be found after the record
of the sitting.

(1) Nelly, after greeting me, said : " What do I talk to you about f — after a
pause — " Helen's brooch." (Mrs. V. said she had brought a brooch received
since seeing Nelly, of which she knew nothing but that it was old.)

Nelly. " Will describe before seeing."

Mrs. V. got up, took out [from bag] brooch in envelope folded down, held
it while Nelly spoke.

Nelly. " There is a stone let in, — it is like an earring, — in the shape of &e
earring ; it is connected with the old lady (by this meaning Helen's grand-
mother). Give me the brooch."

Mrs. V. took brooch out of envelope and gave it

Nelly. "There's hair in it — the lady that gave the brooch has got i
Margaret ; I thought Helen had it."

Mrs. V. " No, it has been given since I saw you, given to Helen by u
aunt."

Nelly. " Mrs. Sidgwick seems rather poorly ; you've brought an influent
of Mrs. Sidgwick not being quite well to-day, — not ill. [Not correct.] Hit
lady that gave the brooch has got a sore throat, a bad cold, either now, just
now or shortly (will have). The lady of the brooch made an apron for the oti
lady, I see her embroidering it. Has Helen been painting lately ? — pain tine
a head — in the hot weather, — something is the matter with her paints in the
hot weather." [Not correct.]

Mrs. V. " I have not heard of it."

Nelly. " Ask Helen, she'll remember."

(2) Nelly. " A lady belonging to you had her breast taken off, —not a
relation, — it was the left breast, then there was something underneath her
arm (some further trouble, I understood). You didn't come on 12th Septem-
ber." [See Sitting 2.]

Mrs. V. " On the 14th, it was to be, but I was only to come if it were coo
venient, not on purpose, and I was in the country with my husband for his
holiday."

Nelly. " Your husband has headache at the back of his head," touching her
own head.

1 This was the least good of all the sittings in which I have taken part, sod
must not be regarded as a normal specimen. Mrs. Thompson was in great anxitty
about a friend who had undergone a serious operation on the day of the sitting.

Mrs. V. " No, I think not"

XLIV.]

Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson.

235

Nelly. " Perhaps he is going to. There's a dead clergyman belonging to
him, lived more North than London. [Not identified.] Why does Mr
Edmund Gurney come ? "

Mrs. V. "I knew him."

NeUy. "He's standing behind you, — he's got a message for you.1' . . .
Then slowly — " He says your work is to help Mr. Myers in unravelling the
tangled skein he will give you."

Here Nelly reverted to my husband, asked why she kept thinking of him,
I said he was much interested and would be glad to have something said that
I did not know, — that could not be learnt by telepathy from me.

Nelly. "There's an old gentleman that stuttered, that your husband knew,
with a James in his name, — an acquaintance." [Not identified.]

(3) Nelly. " The brooch like an earring is the brooch I saw [meaning at
former sitting, No. 3]. The lady belonging to it is not married, she lives in
a house, a country house, not a rich house, back from the road, it's got red
stuff round the bed (I've been there before). They call you May, Mrs.
Myers calls you May (mother has heard her, but it's not the truth), it is
Margaret."

Mrs. V. u Yes, my name is Margaret."

Nelly. "There's one dead person who called you Margaret to your
mother. I see you and Mother talking, and Dr. Hodgson comes in and
speaks to you. [Not fulfilled.] There's another brooch very similar
to this one. The lady of the brooch is fuller in the bust than you ; she
wears a muff with a cord. (Many people do that but) she lately looked
at her muff — this is the lady that's got a Margaret."

Mrs. V. " I don't know which lady you mean. Do you mean the old lady ?
Is she the same as the lady of the brooch ?"

Nelly said it was confusing and she was not clear herself, but the old lady
said (here she spoke louder)—" that's Margaret, not May."

(4) Nelly gave me back the brooch and asked for something else if I had
brought (anything). [I told her I had some letters, and got up to fetch them,
They were in a plain envelope inside my bag which was lying on the table
within Bight. I was about to take them out of their envelope, when she said]
" No, give me one, only, in the envelope." (I took out one without choosing
and gave her the other, folded inside the envelope. She held»it in her right
hand, with some of her fingers inside the envelope. She made no attempt to
take it out, and I watched closely, but could detect no attempt to look at the
contents.)

Nelly. "I wish I was— "
Mrs. V. " I don't understand."

Nelly. " 4 1 am sure ' — that's in the letter. It is a lady's letter, she's not
very well, not in good health when she wrote. I associate her with the old
lady who was troubled about Helen's low frocks (see former ajtln£>3, No. 2).
There are lots of people trying to talk — there's a stained ▼ m

connexion with the lady."

Digitized by G00gle

236

Mrs. A. W. VerraU.

[part

Mrs. V. " I know nothing about that."

Nelly. " Ask the younger lady. The lady is interested in what I am telling
you, but she did not believe it, — she got explanations for things like this,—
she wondered from the Bible."

(Here I think I looked puzzled.) Nelly (said) emphatically that she was
not religious, but it was not the idea of her life to make it the truth.

Nelly. " Yorkshire I seem to go to, — not in connexion with the letter, but
with you, you and your husband go to Yorkshire or Lancashire."

(5) Nelly. " The old lady was misunderstood. She was really sympathetic,
but did not show her feelings, was self-contained and misunderstood. The
mother of the lady of the letter lived to be very old, — she had great interest
in you. She was shorter than the lady of the letter."

(6) Nelly. " Margaret's husband looks older than he is — he's only a
stampling (or stapling) over 40, but he looks more. He's talking with a
gentleman who has told him of an accident."

Mrs. V. " Can you describe either of them ? "

Nelly. " One gentleman has a black beard. There's an upset at one of the
colleges- a big one, every one will talk — a misfortune or a scandal — some-
thing is going to happen."

(7) Nelly. " I think of gas and a dentist, it's connected with the lady of
the letter — she went with you or you with her (to a dentist). I see yon
waiting in a room looking into the street. The letter has been in a drawer
on the left hand side." [Correct]

(8) Nelly. "Tri-pos"— (this was said slowly in two divisions). "Do yon
know what that means ? "

Mrs. V. "Yes."

Nelly. " It's something about Helen. She's going to have one."
Mrs. V. " Very likely, but not yet"

Nelly. " The old lady will be proud when she sees Helen with it. It's a
kind of examination, same as you, but it's a bit larger and brighter than yoa."
Mrs. V. " Which old lady ? "

Nelly. " Helen's Greeks or Greece — do you understand ? "
Mrs. V. "Yes."

Nelly. " — must not be overdone. Helen's rather enthusiastic, because its
fresh. Helen's grandmother wants to see your husband alone. (Let him
come but) don't let mother know it's Mr. Verrall."

(9) Nelly. " M r. Gurney says that everything has to be arranged beforehand,
and if Henry were to hear him talk, he would be convinced."

Mrs. V. " Who would be convinced and who is to talk ? "

Nelly. " Henry would be convinced (if he heard the old lady talk) and that
would convince your husband. The old lady could tell Henry better. You
see the actual belonging is better than when it's married. Henry belongs r

lliv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. 237

these two words] with great emphasis. w Don't laugh, but I think of apple
lumplings with the lady of the letter."

Mr*. V. " Can you tell me who all these ladies are ? n

Nelly (with great decision). " The lady of the letter is the lady of the velvet
boots— quite distinct from the grandmother who did not like the low necks.
The brooch belongs to Helen's grandmother, Henry belongs to her."

(1) 1 took with me to this sitting a brooch that had recently been given to
my daughter by an aunt, the daughter of the " grandmother " who had been
said in Sitting 3 to have given a brooch. The brooch was of an old-
fashioned design, and had, I knew, come from some other owner to the aunt,
but neither my daughter nor I knew who that previous owner was. The
brooch is in the shape of a gold knot and pendant locket, with blue enamel
and pearl, and there is hair in the pendant. At the time of the sitting
I knew that my daughter and a cousin had been given this brooch and a
riug by their aunt, and that the cousin, being the elder, had chosen the ring.

It will be seen that Nelly gave a correct description of the brooch before
she saw it, while I held it in a folded envelope ; there is a stone let in, and
the brooch is in the shape of an earring.

The " lady of the brooch " is too indefinite a phrase for identification ; it
might describe (1) the aunt who gave it, (2) the lady from whom she
received it. This lady who, as I subsequently found, was not a relative, has
been dead some years. The giver of the brooch had had no recent sore throat.

For further remarks about the brooch, see below on 3.

(2) A friend of mine, not a relative, had had the operation described in
the summer of 1899. I did not at the time know which side had been
operated on, but found on enquiry that it was the left. She had made a
very fair recovery at the time of the sitting, but there has been further
trouble since.1

(3) For the red stuff round the bed, see comment on Sitting 3.

My name is Margaret, and I always use Margaret in my signature, but no
one calls me by that name. My grandmother (father's mother) used to call
me " Margaret " to me and to my mother, as she thought the name " May "
foolish.

When I told my daughter of Nelly's statement about the similar brooch
she said that was so, and that the reason why the cousin chose the ring and
not the brooch was that she already possessed a brooch in design precisely
like the one in question, but with garnets for its decoration. The brooch
has no connexion with any member of our family.

1 For obvious reasons I am unable to give details here, but I may state that the
subject was introduced again at the next sitting by Nelly, in connexion with the
name of a lady who is a common friend of myself and the lady who had been ill,
and that on this occasion Nelly repeated the suggestion of further suffering, and
coupled it with a Christian name, closely resembling that of the invalid hulv.

Comment on above account of Sitting 4.

238

Mrs. A. W. VerraU.

[part

(4) The two letters which I had taken were from my mother to me, dated
20th and 23rd October, 1876. They were selected by me on the day before
the sitting, from a packet of letters kept in a cardboard box in my husband's
study. The particular parcel from which these letters came had been in the
box only a few hours ; since 1894 they had been in the left-hand drawer of
my table in the study, and before that for many years they had been in
an old-fashioned writing desk. I selected these two out of several of about
the same date, written by my mother on her return to Brighton from
Cambridge in October, 1876. She was not well at Cambridge, and was ill
when she reached home. I did not know which of the two letters I had
given to Mrs. Thompson.

Thus it is true that the lady who wrote was not in good health ; the onlv
allusion to the writer's health was in the inner pages, which Mrs. Thompson
could not possibly have seen.

The words " I am sure " occur in the letter, on the outside sheet, at the
bottom of the envelope, upside down. They must have been touched by
Mrs. Thompson's fingers, but they could not have been seen unless the
envelope had been partly opened. I saw no attempt to do this, and she
certainly did not bring the envelope near her other hand.

The remarks about the " lady " are unintelligible, and I do not know to
what lady they were supposed to apply.

My husband and I have not been to Yorkshire or Lancashire since

(5) My mother's mother was, I think, 87 when she died. She lived in the
house with us as children and was very fond of us. She was less tall than
my mother.

(6) My husband was 48. Nothing is known of the misfortune or scandal ;
my husband had no talk with any friend during the sitting.

(7) Naturally my mother accompanied me to a dentist more than once
during my childhood.

(8) It was not true that Greek was fresh to my daughter. She was
learning a new subject, but it was not Greek (see Sitting 2, No. 2).

(9) Henry is the name of my husband's father. There seems here a con-
fusion between my mother and my mother-in-law. Nelly seemed to think
that Henry was more closely connected with the lady than was my husband,
but yet, on being asked to distinguish, she rightly separated the lady of the
velvet boots (my mother) from the other grandmother who did not like the
low frocks, to whom she assigned the brooch (see Sittings 2 and 3), and
,to whom Henry "belongs."

(5) October 10, 1899.— Message heard by Mrs. Thompson when hold-
ing a shell to her ear, and sent by her to one of her sitters, who sent it
on to me. The message was sent by Mrs. Thompson on October 10, 1899.

1896.

5 and 6. Messages Connected with Sittings.

xliv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. 239

" Tell Mrs. Verrall the old lady who was cross about Helen's low-necked
frocks and sleeves tied up is just like Arthur Willgar — that means she
cannot believe I am really telling through my mother things belonging to
our house, but I am going to work very hard to make her understand, then
Mr. Willgar will understand too — he does understand worse difficulties ; the
old lady says she will try to know about it."

(6) October 20, 1899. — Note of statement made by Nelly in a sitting
on October 20 when I was not present, and sent to me by the sitter on
October 21, 1899.

Nelly says (not & propos of Mrs. Verrall):

"Arthur Willgar has a dark beard — not healthy looking — a bit livery
under the eyes — I see him walking on the old Chain Pier at Brighton
shortly before it was blown away. I don't think he's married, but he has a
Helen belonging to him."

The lady in question, my husband's mother (see earlier sittings), had been
a Miss Woollgar; my husband's baptismal names are Arthur Woollgar.
The description given is correct. The old chain pier at Brighton is close
to my father-in-law's house, and my husband has often been on it : it is one
of his most marked associations with Brighton.

This is the first appearance of my husband's names, and of Brighton in
connexion with him. The error in the second name (Willgar for Woollgar)
is rather that of imperfect hearing than of imperfect vision ; it may be
noted in this connexion that the message was said by Mrs. Thompson
to have been heard in a shell. Nelly continued throughout to use the
wrong pronunciation, Willgar.

At Hampstead ; present, Mrs. Thompson and Mrs. Verrall alone. Notes
as for Sitting 4.

Nelly. " Have you brought a letter ? "

Mrs. V. "No."

(Mrs. V. gave a glove.)

(1) Nelly. "This belongs to a gentleman with a Mary Elizabeth. Mary
Elizabeth knew him as a little boy. This gentleman is not so well the last
week or two. He used to ride a bicycle when it was high, now he rides it
when it is low. When on the high bicycle he had an accident to his
shoulder."

Mrs. V. "Which shoulder?"

Nelly. " It was not broken ; it was, I think, the left shoulder. He fell on
it. He wore a Tarn o' Shanter hat or a round cap, not a cap with a peak (on
the high bicycle). -

"Is it Mary or Marian ? They say M ^ngs

Comment on above account of Messages 5 and 6.

Sitting 7. November 2nd, 1899.

240

Mrs. A. W. Verrail.

[part

to a mail who writes books more than he ought ; let his mind have * rut
He has a Henry, — not his son M — said as if puzzled — " but he says 4 My sob
Henry.' I don't know. Under his eyes he's a bit riogy, this last week or
two. He's like as if a Greek man ; yet he seems English. If he were not
English, he would be Greek. He seems not to preach, but like preaching:
he doesn't preach, but he preaches too much ; he preaches in black but not
in white" — mysteriously, "There's something wrong with his health1 Mrs.
Cartwright said : I don't like his health if his name is Willgar."
Mrs. V. ' How do you spell Willgar?"

Nelly. " W-I-L-L-G-A-R. He has not had outdoor exercise enough
lately ; his work is not bad for him, if he could take exercise. He wiD
perhaps be deaf. Mrs. Cartwright sends all this, says every word ; she feek
sure that he will be a little deaf, he will not lose his eyesight, but slight
deafness, that failure will be his weakness. He used to be fond of boating
Not at Cambridge, but on rough water ; it was not a hobby. He wri'es d«
interesting books, books that they can't do without, but not to give people
at Christmas. He knows Mr. Edmund Gurney."

Mrs. V. "Yes."

Nelly. "He met him not at Cambridge, somewhere besides Cambridge.
Mr. Willgar is at Cambridge now ; I see him in a room with wooden walk
not paper, with red dining-room chairs in it, in a big church place, with r«d
chairs and oak in it."

(2) Nelly. "Merrifield, Merriman, Merrythought, Merrifield ; there was
an old lady named one of those, that did not believe any more than Mr.
Willgar. She loves you, she is in your surroundings, but wants to convince
Mr. Willgar. I can't see that he's married, but he's got a Helen."

(3) Nelly. " There's a little boy at our house, he would have been about
eleven, he's a bit larger than Hosie, he never talked, he's dead with you, but
he's not dead in our world. Little Arthur, he's not got a name, I call him
that. Mrs. Cartwright says : 4 He's a little Arthur.' *

(4) Nelly. "Mr. Willgar has a very dark grey overcoat, I think there's a
ticket not given up in the pocket of the overcoat. You go and knock at l is
door and ask ; tell him you are a S.P.R. researcher and he'll excuse it
There's a Margaret belonging to him. Margaret has got a Henry, not a son,
wait" . . . — after a pause— " Margaret belongs to a man that has got a
Henry. Mr. Willgar's name, — it is not Professor Barrett, but it seems as
if it had the same sort of letters as Professsor Barrett. There's an old gen-
tleman, an old lawyer gentleman, belongs to Mr. Willgar. He's very old
now."

Mrs. V. " Is he in your house ?"

Nelly. "No [with great emphasis], quite alive. He's not a lawyer that
wraps up paper" — (here she went through the action of) rolling papers
together — " and has a wig ou. Have you brought something of Helen's ? p

1 A particular organ was mentioned as " wrong " ; this is not correct

xliv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. 241

Mrs. V. " No, I have brought nothing but the glove."

Nelly. " I heard you tell mother she wasn't very well, I was not far off.
Mr. Willgar has got somebody belonging to him who had an operation . * ."
(Digression, omitted from report) " Mr. Willgar's not going to be ill ; there's
a leather couch like a sofa in the room where he works, I am sure some-
thing will come to his health 1 if he does not lie down more. He will laugh
when you tell him about his health.1 "

Mrs. V. "Yes, I think he will."

Nelly. " He is not to laugh about it. He has dark whiskers and beard,
his face is rather pale, a creamy colour, his hair is brushed up, like this."

(Here she pushed her hair back from her forehead, saying, " Back off the
brow," by which I understood her to mean that the hair was not brushed
erect.)

Nelly. " He's not a man with a large love for outside people ; he's satisfied
with his own people ; not keen on relations, not a great man for looking up
his relations, he would rather have a good strong book than people to talk."

Mrs. V. " Can you tell me about him when he was younger, or about his
friends?"

Nelly. " He used to be at the seaside, this Mr. Willgar. It is funny for
the seaside, it looks such a 'house-ified' place, it's an ungreen seaside. When
he was there it was a fishing place, not like a nigger seaside; it seems to have
developed. He was associated with Worthing when he was a very young
boy, he had cause to go there. The ungreen seaside place is not Worthing.
He used to see some one at Worthing. There's an old Mary belonging to
him."

Mrs. V. " In your house or ours ? "

Nelly. " In our house, a dead lady. She died at a seaside place. She had
& thin neck, the lady was rather stout, she shows me her neck. She wore
Honiton lace collars. Henry comes with everybody, he comes with this old
lady. With that old lady I get Mary Gloucester. Mr. Willgar is not fifty
yet, perhaps he will not laugh so much at the health trouble1 when he is
fifty."

(5) Mrs. V. " Have you anything to tell me about Helen's grandmother ?
She promised to communicate if she could."

Nelly. "I said you were coming at two, she would communicate if she
could. I have not seen her. Mrs. Merrythought, that's not quite right, it's
like the name of a garden."

Mrs. V. " I know the name you mean, but I won't tell you."

Nelly. " Think of it and see if I can find it."

(I fixed my attention on the name Merrifield ; after a minute Nelly said :)
Nelly. " No, I am muddled. I will tell you how names come to us. It's
like a picture, I see school children enjoying themselves ; you can't say
Merrymans, because that's not a name, nor Merry people. Mr. Willgar's got
no brothers that I can see, he has a sister ; she ought to be married, she's

1 See previous Note.

242

Mrs. A. W. VerraU.

[part

quite large enough. But what would the poor old lawyer do ? Have yoa
come for nothing, all this way to Mother's house ?"

Mrs. V. " No, everything that you have said is right"

Nelly. " I see Mr. Willgar in a big church preaching a service for men
only. He's got a voice more powerful than his physique ; his voice is very
telling, it is heard quite at the back of the room. [Correct.] You invite Mr.
Willgar to come (at my own house) [where Mrs. Thompson was coming to
stay], old Mary might like to talk. There's rather a breathing, n— {she
touched her side ; I understood her to be) referring to " old Mary."

(6) Nelly. "Now this is not for Mr. Willgar, but for you. I see yoa
doing something with a lot of papers, thinking it over, not correcting exam-
ination papers, it's something for yourself. It's a large bundle, you turned
it over."

[Here followed some statements, which I here omit ; the statements were
in the main correct ; some referred to the lady who had had an operation as
described above, Sitting 4, No. 2].

(7) Nelly. "Mother said, Don't you tell Mrs. Verrall she's got a sister
Flora, because it's in the book to-day ; Mother saw it" [Digression on the
subject of the death watch.]

Mrs. V. "Can you tell me something else about my sister, besides her
name ? "

Nelly. " She is not married ; she lives in a country house — not in Cam-
bridge, further from London than Cambridge is. I can't tell you any more.
Put away the glove, don't let Mother see it Flora gave you a bag for your
birthday, it's greener than that one." (I had [brought the glove in] a leather
bag.) " It's not green, it's a small bag, a little pocket outside, a little hand-
kerchief bag. You had an uncle that died. It was not long after that
You have got a servant with fair hair [not correct] ; she's not been well in
her head, not mad, but lackadaisical, limp [not correct]. Oh ! I am talking
nonsense — I had better go."

(1) To this sitting I brought nothing but a glove of my husband's;
I was anxious to see whether Nelly would be able (1) to give information
about the owner, (2) to identify him as my husband, (3) to identify him as
the " Arthur Willgar " of the above messages. My husband had two aunts
called Mary and Elizabeth ; his > ounger sister was called after them, but the
name Marian was given instead of Mary, as there were other Marys in the
family. This lady is a member of the S.P.&., and her initials M. £., but not
her full name, appear in the list of members and associates.

It is true that my husband rode a high bicycle from about 1877 to 1883,
very seldom after his marriage in 1S82. He also rode a low bicycle from
about 1894 to 1900. So far as he knows, he never had an accident to his
shoulder when bicycling, but in July, 1899, 4 months before this sitting, a
doctor treating him for rheumatism said that there had been an old strain

Comment on Sitting 7.

xliv.] Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Thompson. 243

to one of his shoulders, probably due to an accident, perhaps a fall. My
husband had mentioned this to me, but neither of us could recall any
accident I did not at the time of the sitting know which shoulder showed
the old strain ; my husband is not sure, but thinks it was the right
Nothing is known of the cap described.

Henry is the name of my husband's father (see note on Sitting 4, No. 9).
My husband lectures on classical subjects at Cambridge, and wears of course
a black gown ; he was suffering from rheumatism at the time of the sitting,
and exercise was naturally a difficulty. He has never been fond of boating,
he does write books, and he did know Mr. Gurney, not only at Cambridge ;
he used to see him at Brighton as well as at Cambridge, and stayed with
him in Ireland at the house of a common friend.

The description of the room with wooden walls, etc., suggests the hall at
Trinity, which is shown to visitors, and is likely to have been seen by Mrs.
Thompson when she stayed in Cambridge iu July, 1899.

(2) My unmarried name was Merrifield ; my mother was not interested
in the work of the S.P.R.

Helen is the name of our only child ; it will be seen that the name of
Willgar has been used of the owner of the glove, and that he is seen to be
connected with my maiden name, unknown as far as I know to Mrs. Thomp-
son, and with my child's Christian name, certainly known to Mrs. Thompson.

(3) My second child, a girl, was bom in September, 1888, and would
therefore have been eleven years old. She died before learning to speak.
It may be of interest in this connexion to note that an aunt of my husband's
— who seems to be referred to later in this sitting (see below, No. 4)— always
spoke of the nephews' children by their father's name as " little Arthurs,'*
"little Toms," etc

(4) My husband had a dark gray overcoat, but there was no ticket in the
pocket when I looked on my return to Cambridge.

These remarks seem to show a further step in the identification of " Mr.
"Willgar." My name is Margaret ; and Verrall and Barrett are certainly
names of analogous type. My husband's father Henry is a solicitor. He
was 82 at the time of the sitting, and still holding the office of Clerk to the
Magistrates.

The remark about my daughter's health had been made by me to Mrs.
Thompson during lunch.

There is in my husband's study a couch, of leather stretched on a wooden
framework, with stuffed cushions over it. Mrs. Thompson had never been
in my house ; she entered it for the first time on December 4th, 1899,
when she came to stay with me.

The general description seems appropriate. Brighton has developed
greatly within my husband's recollection. He has no associations with
Worthing. An aunt, Mary, a stout lady, lived at Gloucester Place, Brighton,
when he was a child. This lady is dead.

Digitized by

244

Mra. A. W. Verrall.

[part

(5) My husband has two unmarried sisters living with his father. Here
appears the definite recognition that the old lawyer Henry is "Mr. WiilgarV
father.

(6) I had been occupied during two or three days before going to town for
the sitting in correcting for press the proofs of a book.

(7) By the " book," Nelly meant the S.P.R. Journal for November, which
contained an account by me of a hallucinatory ticking, in which my sister's
name was mentioned.

My sister is unmarried, and lives in Brighton.

When Nelly spoke of a bag, I tried to remember what bags I had. The
first suggested was a small yellowish or greenish cloth workbag, which was
the last birthday present given me by my mother, and had been bought by
my sister as my mother could not go out : the only other small bag is a little
leather handbag left in my house by a cousin of mine and annexed by roe.
My uncle, this cousin's father, the only uncle I have known, died 15 or 16
years ago.

XLIV.]

Review.

245

SUPPLEMENT.

REVIEWS.

Nouvelles Observations sur un cos de Somnambulisme avec glossolalie. By
Th. Flournoy (Extrait des Archives de Psychologie de la Suisse Romande,
Vol. I., No. 2, p. 101-255, Geneva, 1902.)

The readers of these Proceedings will remember the account which Mr.
Myers gave in Part XXXVIIL (Vol. xv., pp. 395 4 15) of a remarkable
case of " Pseudo-possession," to wit, the observations T>y Professor Flournoy on
the mediumship of " Mile. Helene Smith " in his book Des Indes a la plankte
Mars, The present article is the coutinuation of the observations there
given, and indeed, as far as Professor Flournoy is concerned, probably its
conclusion. For the great success of his book directed so much attention
to " Mile. Smith" that a wealthy American lady came to see her, was
convinced of the spiritist interpretation of her phenomena, and endowed
her so generously that she can now devote herself entirely to the cultivation
of her psychic gifts. The example thus set is a notable one and may
perhaps be found to indicate the right solution of the difficult problem
of how to extend social support to the curious personalities, whom, for lack
of a better name, we call "mediums" or "psychics." That in the abstract
they deserve such support may be admitted. They are exceedingly rare,
rarer probably than opera singers. And they are psychologically very
interesting, more so perhaps than psychology professors, who at all events
are common enough. If then we endow psychologists, why should we
not endow " mediums " for them to study ? That the current methods of
paying them, practically "by results," are crude and unsatisfactory is admitted
on all hands. They maximize the temptations to fraud and overwork, and
minimize the opportunities for systematic study. Nor can any real advance-
ment be hoped for from unpaid amateurs. For amateur work, though it
may be good enough to start with, also puts obstacles of its own in the
experimenter's way and is too capricious aud inefficient to serve in the long
run. Hence it will be interesting to watch the effect of the experiment
made with " Mile. Smith."

Not that too much must be expected of a first experiment. Indeed the
auguries are not all favourable scientifically. For apparently one of the
results of the improvement in "Mile. Smith's" position has been a com-

246

F. a S. SchiUer.

[part

plete rupture with Professor Flournoy. The publication of his book, he tells
us} severely strained their relations, partly because " Mile. Smith * then for
the first time realized how completely the case for a spiritist interpretation
of her phenomena was explained away by the professor, and partly because
she conceived herself to be " insulted " by the ordinary ignorance and flip-
pancy of the newspaper reviews. In view of the fact that only Professor
Flournoy's strong testimony to her integrity rendered remarkable many
of her performances which could easily have been simulated by fraud, the
critics' insinuations should not, perhaps, have been regarded as unnatural
When, however, "Mile. Smith" realized that these were only the draw-
backs to fame, this phase of estrangement seems to have worn off. Then
came her benefactress and carried her over wholly into the spiritist
camp.

Now that personally a medium should prefer the spiritist interpretation
is natural enough. It is ever so much more nattering to be regarded
as communicating with the spirits of the departed than to be con-
sidered subject to fits of " somnambulism with glossolaly." And in " Mile.
Smith V case the spiritist interpretation was unusually romantic To
reduce the ex-Ranee Simandini of Chandraghiri, the ex-Queen of France,
the protegee of discarhate Cagliostro, the recipient of telepathic communi-
cations from trusty correspondents throughout the solar system, to a mere
dreamer of dreams constructed by an ill-regulated sub-consciousness must
be painful to the least sensitive vanity, and it is not in the least surprising
that Professor Flournoy should have to confess (p. 115) that uMUe. Smith*
is now " profoundly irritated against science and the scientists and only
desires to have nothing more to do with professors." Similar feelings are
widely spread among spiritists and even among the general public, and
their growth is not wholly unreasonable. But "Mile. Smith" would
nevertheless do well to remember that there are professors and professors,
and that in M. Flournoy she has had to do with one of the most sincere and
open-minded of the tribe. She should remember also that her own fame
and importance in the world at large rest almost wholly upon his testi-
mony, and that there is nothing to show that her present friends are willing
or able to keep such a record of her performances as will have the slightest
influence on the judgment of reasonable men.

At present, then, the case stands and falls with Professor Flournoy:s
account of it, even though it is professedly more imperfect as a record of
her later developments than of her earlier exhibitions. Judging by the
material which was accessible to him, Professor Flournoy decides that
nothing substantially new has been produced, and (charitably) supposes
that this may have been due to the influence of his own " suggestion " and
that in different surroundings "Mile. Smith's" niediumship may develop
in new directions. Consequently his chapters on "Leopold" the "spirit-
guide," on the " planetary " languages, on the Indian pre-existence, and on
the " royal cycle " are composed of replies to criticisms and supplementary
chronicles and explanations.

XLIV.]

Review.

247

To take these remarks in order. In the chapter on " Leopold," Professor
Flournoy relates several further instances of useful warnings, which he
interprets as sub-conscious inferences, and so long as it is impossible to
assign any limits to the powers of this subliminal consciousness, it is clear
that nothing of this sort, however surprising, can be affirmed to lie beyond
their scope.

Under the head of planetary wanderings, there seems at first more to
mention. Professor Flournoy quotes extensively from the elaborate philo-
logical study of the "Martian" (pseudo-) language by Professor Victor
Henry of Paris, which gives a (conjectural) derivation of almost the whole
of its vocabulary. "Ultramartian," which had just begun to appear in
Des Indes, has received a further development. Professor Flournoy gives
specimens not only of the language (distinguished by the preponderance
of K and P and T), but of the writing (composed of ideograms — in accord-
ance with the backward condition of this ill-starred planet), and of the
scenery. These latter illustrations appeal not only to the eye, but also to
the sense of the ludicrous (especially the " Ultramartian " sheep (dog?) on
p. 160), but on the whole these pictures are simply childish. In addition we
are afforded a glimpse of " Uranian " (language and script), which is remark-
able for its preference for A, O, L and T, and hear rumours of several
"Lunar" languages — as to the authenticity of which Mr. H. G. Wells does
not yet seem to have been consulted.

The new material with regard to the Hindu pre-existence of " Mile.
Smith" consists almost wholly of descriptions of visions, and adds nothing
verifiable to the historical data previously given. On the other hand, the
internal contradictions of the story, regarded as history, come into stronger
relief. Thus the Sanscrit experts all agree that the trance-utterances are
solely Sanscrit imperfectly reproduced, but without admixture of other
tongues ; that Indian women, neither at the time alleged (1401) nor at
any other, spoke Sanscrit ; that the language of the place alleged (Kanara)
was, and is, Dravidian, and utterly different from Sanscrit ; that it is
incredible that a Mussulman Arab chief would marry his daughter to a
Hindu prince practising suttee. And Professor Macdonell's acute remark
that the phrases attributed to Simandini looked very like examples from
a Sanscrit grammar, looks rather lurid in the light of the discovery (p,
212) that one of the spiritist friends of " Mile. Smith," in whose study
she often gave seances, had in this very room a Sanscrit grammar con
taining some of the most characteristic words used by "Mile. Smith"!
As against all this, the apparent authenticity of the Hindu song (Des Indesy
p. 301-2) can hardly be said to weigh seriously.

Of the " Royal Cycle," Professor Flournoy is not able to give many
additional rehearsals, although he has heard that when "Mile. Smith*
was taken to Paris, " reminiscences " of her life as Marie- Antoinette came
upon her with great force. An episode which he does describe, with the
"control" by Dr. Barthez, the physician of the Due d'Orleans (not of
Philippe- Egalite, however, but of his father), seems to suffer from serious

248

F. G. S. Schiller.

[part

historical anachronisms, and there is no similarity between his authentic
handwriting and that produced by " Mile. Smith."

Some further remarks on the Burnier-Chaumontet signatures, which in
their way seemed perhaps the most striking evidence in favour of a
spiritist interpretation produced by " Mile. Smith," tend considerably
to diminish the difficulty of explaining them by latent memory, while
there has been no multiplication of similar feats to tell on the other side.

On the whole, therefore, it is not surprising that Professor Floumoy
should find that he has nothing to retract and little to add to his previ-
ously-expressed judgment ou his subject, and that he continues to regard
the case of " Mile. Smith " as decidedly on a lower plane of scientific
interest from those of Mrs. Piper and Mrs. Thompson (p. 252). Adherents
of the S.P.R. will read with pleasure and approval his concluding remarks
(p. 254) on the deplorable chasm which exists between the "orthodox9
psychologists, who are devoid of interest in supernormal phenomena, and
the enthusiasts who have the desire to know, but are devoid of aD
scientific method, and on the services of the S.P.R. in attempting to
bridge this chasm.

I have so far aimed only at reproducing Professor Flournoy's conclusions
concerning what all who are interested in Psychical Research must feel he
has, by his care, lucidity and candour, made an epoch-making case. But for
this very reason it seems appropriate to improve the occasion to discuss, by
way of criticism, or perhaps in lieu thereof, some of the general issues he
has raised.

(1) In the first place there is the question of whether he did well to reject
the spiritist interpretation so decisively. It is not that I would dispute that
on the evidence of this case he is fully entitled to do so. But the history of
science is full of examples of incompatible theories, each of which, m
the given state of knowledge, seemed to supply alternative explanations of
the facts of nearly equal value. And though in his last chapter Pro-
fessor Floumoy shows that he possesses the true logical doctrine with
regard to the investigation of anomalous facts, one sometimes feels that
somewhat less confidence in hazarding an ti- spiritist explanations would not
have been unbecoming. He sometimes seems almost to forget what a big
hypothesis, what an asylum ignorantiae, the subliminal consciousness still is,
I cannot feel that there is so much to choose between it and spiritism as
Professor Floumoy supposes. He regards the latter as an explanation ignoti
per ignotius (p. 130)— as indeed it has often been taken to be, not
only by spiritists. But in reality the appeal to spirits, though it may
be perverted into a pseudo-explanation, is intrinsically an appeal to per-
sonal beings with motives and minds acting analogously to our own
and pro tanto knowable, and calculated, roughly, to render knowable
the phenomena it deals with, while as soou as we sink below the level
of clear consciousness, we enter a land of darkness where all analogies

II.

XLIV.]

Review.

249

fail us and where anything may happen. This has always been the
secret reason why academic psychology has fought so shy of anything
that savours of the " unconscious 99 : and so, if I were an " orthodox "
psychologist, I should find it hard to choose between two equally distasteful
theories. But I am sure that a "subliminal self" capable of the astounding
retentiveness and marvellous creati veness which Professor Floumoy demands
for " Mile. Smith's " would be quite as efficient in destroying my " dogmatic
torpor" as the boldest extravagances of spiritism. But as I do not feel
pledged to the glib application of a few trite psychological formulas as the a
priori explanation of all the facts that await investigation, I prefer to preserve
an open mind with regard to any explanation that may be propounded, and
to leave myself free to hold that the truth will probably turn out to be far
greater and more complicated than is as yet anticipated by the rival theorists.
In other words, there does not seem to be any pressing need at present to
come to a decision ; we may hold any theory of these perplexing phenomena,
if we do so in a tentative and methodological sense, and may use the rivalry
of the conflicting theories with a view to sharpening our observation of the
facts.

(2) And this brings me to my second point, viz., whether Professor
Floumoy has done full justice to the methodological advantages of spiritism
as a working theory. The present case seems to show that the triumph of
the scientific explanation (allowing the subconscious self theory to be more
scientific) can be overdone in practice. For it is evidently a mistake to
alienate one's subject, and it is conceivable (though not perhaps very
probable) that if Professor Floumoy had contented himself with a less
complete " explanation " of " Mile. Smith's " performances, he might still be
permitted to observe her developments. But quite apart from such personal
questions, it seems possible that the spiritist interpretation is per se more
stimulating and encouraging, and therefore more likely to bring out the full
powers of the " medium." It is naturally depressing to be told that you
are an ill-balanced person, whose normal life is perturbed by irruptions of
subliminal abnormality ; it is inspiriting to hold that you are a chosen
channel of communication with other worlds. Whatever, therefore, the
nature of the phenomena may ultimately turn out to be, it seems probable
that the latter interpretation will make the most of them, and will
actually produce more of them ; and this would seem to be one of the
elements of truth in the constant insistence on " faith " as a condition of
success in such investigations.

Translated from the concrete into terms of abstract logic, the point in-
dicated seems to be the possibility of a divergence between the methods of
proof and of discovery. Proof consists in the progressive assimilation of the
new truth by the old, in the establishment of their counexion and systematic
coherence. But it does not follow that we shall also discover most by always
insisting on this, and by never advancing beyond what can be strictly
" proved." The discoverer, in other sciences as well as in geography, may
have to be like an explorer of a terra incognita, who must push ahead by

250

F. C. S. Schiller.

[part

whatever means are handy. In so doing, he doubtless must run risks and
often cut himself adrift from bis base in established principles. He has "faith,"
of course, that his communications can ultimately be restored, but his proxi-
mate aim is the discovery of novelty, and not its digestion. He should
be more solicitous, therefore, not to let anything new escape him, than to
secure his retreat into the cosmos which science has already set up. In this
manner, then, it may be methodologically expedient to use hypotheses whose
ultimate validity may appear very doubtful. Whether, on that account,
" Mile. Smith " will do better under exclusively spiritist auspices remains to
be seen. For while the " faith " of ber spiritist friends in the possibility
of obtaining the sort of evidence they demand may render its production
possible, by stimulating the medium, or in other as yet unknown ways,
no amount of " faith " can by itself be a substitute for trustworthy recording
and intelligent experimentation, and it seems too probable that the oppor-
tunities of obtaining further instruction from "Mile. Smith" will be thrown
away, unless she comes once more under the supervision of a sympathetic
expert of the type, say, of Dr. Hodgson.

(3) The next issue to raise is perhaps that of whether, in point of fact, Pro-
fessor Flournoy has completely explained " Mile. Smith's " case on his theory.
He appears to think that he has, and with two reservations I should agree
with him. The first reservation, as I have already indicated, is that the
facts are at present in such a condition that, like every growing science.
Psychical Research admits of a good deal of indetermination, and a number
of theories may apparently cover the facts, while nevertheless, they may all
be wrong or very partially right. The second is that even though " Mile.
Smith's " performances are all built up out of her (subliminal) memories, yet
the construction out of these of coherent " dreams M requires a principle of
selection.1 No doubt we are all familiar with the operation of such a
principle in ordinary dreams ; but then the psychology <»f dreams stands
itself badly in need of an elucidation which it would, no doubt, long ago
have received but for the psychologists' horror of what seemed abnor-
mal and of no great practical importance. And it is further remarkable
that this " selecting principle :' should always mimic with such extraordinary
closeness " proofs" of spiritism (and in this case of reincarnation). This one
might be tempted to explain as due to the greater interest of the spiritist
interpretation alluded to above, were it not that the phenomenon persistently
occurs also in cases where the " medium " rejects that interpretation.8 If I
were concerned, therefore, to bolster up the spiritist view, I should suggest
%t the facts looked as though an intelligence were at work that was
lirous of conveying the impression of coming from another world, but yet,
a rule, found itself unable to express anything but what had once passed

1 Professor Flournoy just touches on this difficulty (top of p. 243).

2 E.g. in Mrs. Piper's case, and in a case of automatic writing in which my
brother, Mr. F. N. Schiller, acted as "medium." — See Proceedings, voL iv.,
p. 216.

XLIV.]

Review.

251

through the medium's mind, and therefore was reduced to ran sacking-
it for the most improbable and recondite memories, in order to simulate
an extram lindane origin. And such a procedure might perhaps even be
made to seem pardonable and psychologically plausible in a "spirit'1 seek-
ing to express its continued identity under the restrictions of an alien
organism.

(4) And this again suggests the final reflection that very little has really
been done in the spiritist camp in the way of psychological elaboration of
their working principle. One cannot read Professor Flournoy's replies to
the spiritist criticisms of his book without being greatly struck by the
argumentative weakness of the latter.

The fact seems to be that spiritists as yet have hardly a notion of the
resources which modern psychology and philosophy may yield them for
the defence of their favourite thesis, and do not realize how hollow is the
ground on which the "scientific" materialism of their opponents stands.
Materialism has the support (broadly) of our existing academic personnel, of
the customary ways of common^sense, and of the inertia which shrinks
from translating speculation into experimentation. But all these things are
capable of being altered, if a really strong and genuine desire to know can
be aroused with regard to these subjects.

But when it is and when the spiritist theory is advocated by one who
really knows where the land lies, it is safe to say that no one will be blind
to the absurdity of taking " Mile. Smith's " " planetary " excursions literally.
For the notion of a relation between our world and an " other," which should
take the form of one in physical space (i.e. in the space of our world), will
then be seen to possess precisely the same crudeness as the ancients' fancy,
that by descending the crater of A vermis one might go straight to the
house of Hades, and that by sailing westwards beyond the Pillars of
Hercules one might reach the Islands of the Blest.

From the very nature of the case, the relation between two worlds (i.e,
modes of experience) must be of a psychological order. The alleged
" other " world cannot lie north, east, west, or south of ours. It must be a
state of consciousness, or a mode of experience, into which we pass from
that constituting our " world," and from which we can, perhaps, repass. In
comprehending its relation to ours, therefore, the guiding analogies must be
psychological. In other words, the relation must be conceived as analogous
to that of a " dream " world to a " real " world, — without, of course, pre-
judging the question of which is to be regarded as the " reality " and which
as the " dream." That question can only be decided by the comparison of the
contents of the two " worlds," and (since we ex hypothesi start from our
world) by the value of the revelations of the u other " world for our life.
Judged by such canons, the grotesque and unmeaning childishness of
" Mile. Smith's" planetary dreams will at once settle their interpretation,
and dispose of them without any superfluous censure of the poverty of
scientific imagination and the obvious scientific ignorance which they
display. F. C. S. Schiller.

Digitized by

252

F. N. Hales.

Fact and FabU in Psychology. By Joseph Jastrow, Professor of Psy-
chology in the University of Wisconsin. (Houghton, Mifflin & Co., Boston
and New York, 1900.)

Professor Jastrow's book is a collection of popular essays upon a variety of
psychological topics. Many of them were written a number of years ago,
and are now reprinted from the various magazines in which they first at
the light1 Most of the essays, we are told, have been submitted to a critical
revision, and brought as far as possible up to date. Two essays to which v?
will mainly devote our remarks, — "The Problems of Psychical Research7
and " The Logic of Mental Telegraphy," — bear only a general resemblance t"
their former appearance. In others we are glad to see that some errors of
detail have been corrected. Thus, in the entertaining essay on the Psychology
of Spiritualism, in which Prof. Jastrow, borrowing largely from the result*
of the Seybert Commission and of the S.P.R investigations, acutely diagnose*
Spiritualism as a social disease, there occurs the tale of the exposed mediae
who confessed that " the first seance I held after it became known to tbc
Rochester people that I was a medium, a gentleman from Chicago recognised
his daughter Lizzie in me, after I had covered my small moustache with a
piece of flesh-coloured cloth and reduced the size of my face with a shawl 1
had purposely hung in the back of the cabinet" The story is so good thai
it is sure to earn a mythical immortality. Prof. Jastrow does not give id;
references, and refrains from telling us wheuce he got the story and wbo
was the medium. As a matter of fact the tale is told by D. D. Home in
Lights and Shadows of Spiritualism (p. 405). He " copied from an American
newspaper the confession of a detected trickster, who had been caught in
the act of imposture while giving seances at Rochester, N. Y." In accordance
with the rule observed by him throughout Lights and Shadows, Mr. Home
did not print the name of this interesting penitent, which is represented

only by its initial " J 2 Curiously enough, Prof. Jastrow, in his Popular

Science Monthly article (April, 1889), quoted the story as the confession of
" an exposed medium, D. D. Home," who was thus, for the first time, con-
victed of imposture and trickery in Prof. Jastrow's essay. We are glad to
see that this singular error has not been repeated in the reprint before o&
But he is as careful not to give any authority for the major part of his facu
in the reprint of his essay as he was in the original article. That any one
should let slip such a mistake who had, however cursorily, glanced through
Lights and Shadows of Spiritualism, is not easy to believe. To the student

1 We transcribe from the preface their chronological order : The Dreams of the
Blind (Jan., 1888), The Psychology of Deception (Dec, 1888), The Psychology of
Spiritualism (April, 1880), The Problems of Psychical Research (June, 1889), Tbc
Natural History of Analogy (1801), A Study of Involuntary Movements (April
and Sept., 1892), The Logic of Mental Telegraphy (October, 1805), Hypnotism
and its Antecedents (February, 1896), Mental Prepossession and Inertia (April,
1897), The Mind's Eye (1899), The Modern Occult (1900).

2 See The Gift of D. D. Home, by Madame D. D. Home, pp. 210, 211.

Digitized by

XLIV.]

Review.

253

of the Proceedings of the S.P.R., on the other hand, much of Mr. Jastrow's
material has a familiar look. Why does he not take the trouble to acknow-
ledge his indebtedness to the obvious sources ? He admits, with a generosity
which all his colleagues do not share, that the publications of the S.P.B.
are not wholly devoid of value. Why does he not reveal the extent of the
benefit he has derived from them ? This plain duty was all the more in-
cumbent upon him that he chooses what he finds convenient and leaves the
rest The result is wholly misleading. Such an attitude cannot be too
severely condemned. Methods which custom allows an advocate to use
would be morally reprehensible in a judge, and canons of evidence pass
muster in a party pamphlet which have no place in a scientific memoir.

In what light then are we to view this book ? " The present collection
of essays is offered as a contribution towards the realisation of a sounder
interest in, and a more important appreciation of, certain problems upon
which psychology has an authoritative charge to make to the public jury.
These essays take their stand distinctively upon one side of certain issues,
and, as determinately as the situation seems to warrant, antagonise contrary
positions ; they aim to oppose certain tendencies and to support others ; to
show that the sound and profitable interest in mental life is in the usual
and the normal. . . ." In other words, Prof. J astro w claims the right and
assumes the responsibility of making a number of ex cathedra statements
upon a variety of subjects, some of which he conceives have dangerously
engrossed the public interest to the detriment of others. He wishes to
educate the interest of the public in psychological matters. He conceives
that a science cannot prosper if the public take no interest in it, cannot
thrive if it be misunderstood by the layman. It is difficult to see what the
layman's opinion can possibly matter on a question of pure science, or why
the layman should be allowed any voice whatever. To the public, science
is revealed religion, and the savant its prophet The layman believes on
authority, that is his privilege. But in what sense can he be supposed to
form part of a jury ? On account of the public interest taken in the obscure
and the unusual, said Prof. J astro w in a presidential address to the American
Psychological Association, the current conception of psychology is becoming
distorted, and the true interests of psychology are jeopardised by the un-
fortunate confusion of psychology with what is termed psychical research.
Not only then is the public to decide which of two trends of scientific
opinion is the more likely to be fruitful of results, but science is conceived
by Prof. J astro w to freeze and shrivel up if the indiscreet curiosity of the
uninformed public happens to follow the wrong track. And it is in order
to avert this unfortunate catastrophe that Prof. Jastrow delivers his charge
to the public jury. It is, he conceives, " particularly the obligation of the
torch-bearers of science to illuminate the path of progress, and to transmit
the light to their successors with undiminished power and brilliancy ; the
flame must burn both as a beacon-light to guide the wayfarer along the
pathways of science, and as a warning against the will-o'-the-wisps that
shine seductively in the by- ways."

254

F. K Hales.

[part

These essays, then, would appear to subserve a double purpose. In the
first place, they aim at uprooting certain pernicious beliefs widely dissemi-
nated among the magazine public. In the second place, we have a right to
infer, from the sentence just quoted, that they are addressed to scientific
men as well. But the two purposes are really one to Professor Jastrowg
mind. The pure light of "the torch of science" runs a risk of flickering
out, so long as the public gaze is fascinated by some more attractive " will-
o'-the-wisp." Hence, to dispel popular superstitions is ipso facto to render
a service to science. This attitude of the author explains the character of
the book. In it Prof. Jastrow, representing a certain school of psychology
appears both as advocate and as judge, vindicating his own cause before a
jury which is equally unable to grasp the principles underlying either of
the opposing "Tendenzen." As an advocate, he permits himself the use of
rhetorical devices, and as an authoritative psychologist speaking to a popular
audience, he assumes the right of laying down general principles without
pausing to justify them ; this unfortunate ambiguity runs through the whole
book, and makes the task of the critic a thankless one. In most of the
essays, however, it cannot lead to serious misunderstanding. Those on the
Modern Occult, on the Psychology of Spiritualism, on the Natural History of
Analogy, on Hypnotism, on the Psychology of Deception, eta — though they
cannot be considered as contributions to science — will certainly answer the
purpose they were intended to fulfil. The essay on Dreams of the Blind,
on the other hand, we are very grateful to see rescued from the comparative
obscurity of the New Princeton Review. Of the " Experimental Investigation
of Automatic Movements" we shall have a word to say later on. But it
was hardly to be expected that any useful purpose could be served by
discussing the logical status of Psychical Research and of " Mental Tele-
graphy " in essays of so manifestly didactic, and so unfortunately popular a
character. Had they been mere individual expressions of opinion, there
would have been all the more justification for not noticing them. But we
have heard them expressed before, we shall probably hear them again, aud
it may help to clear away misunderstandings if we examine and answer
Prof. Jastrow's arguments one by one. The existence of the Society for
Psychical Research, and the growth of its problems, give rise to the ques-
tion, What attitude is to be taken to the outlying phenomena of mint! !
"Are they," asks Prof. Jastrow, J* are they outcasts, to be treated in a spirit
of charity and forbearance? Are they the true owners of the land, the
unjustly deposed and rightful heirs, soon to be restored to their kingdom by
a fairer and more searching examination of their title ? " And by means of a
series of similar metaphors, he conjures up before the startled psychologist
a threatening mass of obscure phenomena struggling to dispossess the
familiar facts of normal, waking life of their claim upon the scientist's
attention.

Surely no way of stating the problem could possibly be more misleading*
It appears to imply that there are on the one hand a certain number of
respectable, conservative owners of the field, and on the other hand an

XL1V.]

Review.

255

inimical crowd of revolutionary malcontents ; it implies a party warfare
within the republic of science, in which each party seeks its own good
regardless of the good of the whole. Professor Jastrow appears to believe
that psychology may be defined by means of an absolute disjunction ; that
it is the study of one category of phenomena to the exclusion of auother
category of phenomena. We have seen that he speaks of " the unfortunate
confusion of psychology with what is termed psychical research/' and that,
according to him, "the spirit and attitude of psychical research towards
psychology has been productive of harm to our profession [that of psycho-
logist] and to the reputation which we cherish." Now what are, in his
view, the essential characteristics of psychology, and what are those of
psychical research ? Professor Jastrow has himself put the question, aod
he finds that " the precise status of psychical research, and its relations to
other departments of scientific inquiry, are far from obvious." Surely, he
exclaims, the problems of psychical research ought to be able to find a nook
in so commodious a home as Psychology, individual and comparative, normal
and abnormal ! But he soon finds an apparent differentiating characteristic :
" Whereas Psychology studies the recognised and explicable phases of mental
phenomena, Psychical Research is occupied with the disputed and mysterious."
And such a differentiation is as unwarranted as it is clearly absurd. " The
legitimate problems of Psychical Research are equally and necessarily genuine
problems of Psychology, that require no special designation." Prof. Jastrow
complains that psychical research " separates a group of problems from their
natural habitat . . . violently transports a growth from its environment."
And he vehemently protests against the notion " that while the psychologist
may be listened to with respect and authority in one portion of his topic, the
layman and the member of the S.P.R. are equally or more competent to
pronounce judgments in a closely allied field." Surely this is once more
the false disjunction noticed above ! It is certain that any given psychologist,
in so far as he has no knowledge of a special topic, is himself a layman with
regard to that topic, and his opinion carries no sort of authority. But the
assertion that psychology as such has no claim to meddle with psychical
research, meets us for the first time in Prof. Jastrow's pages. Does he mean,
on the other hand, to imply that the psychical researcher is ignorant of
psychology? He is ready to admit that "a considerable portion of the
influential contributors to Psychical Research are animated by as truly
scientific motives as labourers in any other field of psychological endeavour."
He quotes with approval Mr. Podmore ; he borrows copiously from the
inquiries of Dr. Hodgson, of Mrs. Sidgwick, of S. T. Davey. But there are
some " who subscribe to pernicious and illogical conclusions, and indirectly
encourage a most unfortunate attitude in others."

Discussing the actual interests which give vitality to Psychical Research, he
ascribes the chief order of importance to the occult interest ; he allows that
there is also a psychological point of view ; he quotes with approval Mr.
Lang's "comparative psychical research." But the characteristic trait of
the psychical researcher, the one which brands him as the pariah of science,

256

F. M Hales.

[PART

in Professor Jastrow's view, is that the psychical researcher always seeks to
prove or to disprove something. "As soon as he succeeds in finding a con-
sistent and commonplace explanation for a group of phenomena, his main
curiosity is satisfied, and he takes to pastures new." Very different is the
true psychological interest, we are told, in Madame Blavatsky's performances,
e.g., " The logical scientist was quite convinced that Madame Blavatsky had
not discovered the means of carrying ponderables by unseen agencies from
China to Peru" ; just as apparently the logical scientist in Professor Jastrow's
view does not require to study the Mrs. Piper records, still less experiment
personally with Mrs. Piper, in order to give a theory of the phenomena ; nor
to wait for positive evidence before reaching the conviction that, however
D. D. Home managed to do his tricks, he was at any rate and most certainly an
impostor. The psychological problem in all these cases is a quite different
one : " It takes up the inquiry as to how such marvellous pretensions cane
to be believed, by what influences conviction is formed and doctriues
spread." Such is the fundamental difference of principle between psycho-
logist and psychical researcher, according to our author — that while the
psychologist knows there is " nothing in it," without the tedium of a special
inquiry, the psychical researcher takes the trouble to collect evidence is
order to have some special proof whether there is " anything in it " or not
We protest, in the interests of psychology, against this caricatore erf
psychological ideals, and in fairness to psychical research we protest no le#
strongly against the charge of occultism insinuated by Professor Jastrow's
phrase " something in it." It is a mood which he thus characterises, not a
definite logical position ; it is a mood which we detest quite as mnch as he
does ; it is a mood which every scientist detests, because it denies the ra' loc-
ality of his pursuit. And we gladly abandon to any one's satire the idly
curious layman who, by a kind of Schadenfreude rejoices whenever some
outhouse of science collapses on the heads of the masons within. Such a
mood has nothing, however, to do with logic. The scientific conservatism
upheld by Professor Jastrow is no less a mood, and no less foreign to logic
Is psychology, then, so perfect a science that we need not trouble to inves-
tigate phenomena which at first sight seem difficult to explain by the
theories current in any one year? Is the basis of our science, then, so
secure that it is mere waste of time to study facts which at first sight do not
harmonise as perfectly as we might wish with facts already investigated t
Does not the very essence of research consist in finding out whether there
be or be not " something in " a certain fact at preseut obscure ; in finding
out whether this fact makes for one theory or for another ? We perfectly
agree that some theories may be considered extra-scientific, and that the
scientist could not without a logical crime consent to refute or even notice
them. It is equally true that the question whether a theory be scientifically
legitimate or not is one which requires careful discussion. But we never
before supposed that it was possible to assert that : " There is no obligation
resting upon the psychologist to make large sacrifices for the pursuit of
ill-defined residual phenomena." When Professor Jastrow speaks of the

XLIV.]

Review.

257

** psychologist," we trust he means the " representative of psychological
science " ; for while it is certain that no one would reproach any given man
with not attempting a task beyond his strength, or which he is by training
or by nature unfit to cope with, this is a purely personal matter, which does
not touch the logical question.

Moreover, so far as a science is unsatisfactory and incomplete, in so.
far must the interest of the investigator be directed towards the future
rather than towards the past. A desire for novelty as such has nothing
more logical in it than a wish to keep up with the changing fashions
of dress. But we had always thought it was the main characteristic of
a logical system, such as that of science, that so long as it was incom-
plete, no part of it could possibly be regarded as having reached a state
of logical equilibrium. It follows that the interest in that which is
already known, in so far as it is imperfectly known, is a relative interest : it
is relative to the new discoveries which will further define the significance of
the familiar. And the new discoveries have also a merely relative interest : it
is relative to the already known phenomena which they further explain.

We are ashamed to write out these logical platitudes at length. We merely
regret that Professor Jastrow's strictures should have made them necessary.
He censures the S.P.R. for that attitude which is and must be precisely the
attitude of a young science. It is quite as true of the other branches of
experimental psychology as of psychical research that they are constantly
seeking new fields ; just in the same way that they do not and cannot study
anything else than residual phenomena. But the sting of our author's
censure lies perhaps in its tail. He may attach some quite special meaning
to the term " residual phenomena." He censures the S.P.R. indeed again
and again on account of a supposed predilection for the mysterious. Perhaps
he means to hint, by the use of the adjective " residual," that the obscure
phenomena which there is no obligation resting upon the psychologist to
study are also mysterious. We should like a definition of this word ; it is
most unfortunate that the writers who use it most should take least pains
to define it. Any fact or thing is mysterious, for instance, in so far as
its properties or nature are insufficiently known ; and whether a man be
merely puzzled by appearances unfamiliar, or whether he be thrilled by a
mystic emotion at their sight, the difference is entirely subjective. The
sort of feelings aroused in a man by the solution of a logical problem does not
alter in any degree the character of that problem. The word mystery, like
the word supernatural, has no place in the dictionary of science. Either
will be looked for in vain in the writings of our responsible leaders. Sub-
jectively, there are those whom mystery attracts, and those whom it repels.
Both categories of people are, in the end, animated by the same kind of
superstition. Neither has a right to censure the other, because both stand
equally outside the pale of logic. Professor Jastrow, like Professor
MUnsterberg, is one of those for whom the word mystery has a meaning ;
and both alike have a personal distaste for it But what can that possibly
matter to any one ? Were a chemist to excuse himself from investigating

258

F. K Hales.

[part

certain organic substances because he could not stand the smell, we should
doubtless agree that it was not worth while his injuring his health. Bart
what would be thought of him if he loudly proclaimed that the department
he was unfit to investigate was not fit to be investigated at all? Candour
requires him to recognise his own personal disability, but not even the moat
severe moralist could expect him to publish it abroad in a series of popular
addresses !

It is then clear that to censure the S.P.R for investigating "residual
phenomena " is to make a meaningless criticism. Science cannot do anything
else. To censure our leaders for their predominant interest in new fields vt
research is equally illogical In no science, in so far as it is incomplete, can
any body of facts have any other than a relative value. Least of all in the
most backward of all sciences, psychology, is there any justification for a
self-complacent looking backward upon regions already travelled over.
Finally, the reproach that the objects of the S.P.R.'s studies are mysterious
falls back upon those who utter it, and convicts them of that very disposition
which they pretended to diagnose in our leaders.

It is easier still to explain away Prof. Jastrow's other difficulty. Why did
the S.P.R. come into existence at all, and what relation do its problems bear
to other psychological problems? He himself has supplied us with the
logical answer ; and he affects to ignore the historical reason, which was far
more potent twenty years ago than it is now. Recognising at one point that
some of the work of the S.P.R has a certain value, he says that those
problems of psychical research which are legitimate are problems of
psychology. With this we heartily agree. But when he proceeds to imply
that these problems ought never to have been separated from 44 their natural
habitat," we can no longer follow his argument. Surely it is obvious that
one and the same science can and must be — provisionally at any rate —
separated up into a number of special departments which may be investi-
gated each for its own sake. We might as well wonder that psychologists
leave the study of, e.g., cases of aphasia or of psychical blindness to the care
of medical specialists, on the ground that these pathological problems are
problems of psychology. As Prof. Jastrow himself says: "The division of
the Sciences reflects the diversity of human interests. ... It is obvious
that the Sciences were shaped by human needs." It is obvious that the
division of labour in science has a practical as well as a logical ground. No
man can be equally competent in all branches of his favourite science : that
is the practical cause of the division. He must seek to master a group of
affiliated problems : that is the guiding principle of the division. No one
who is familiar with the sort of work implied will doubt the practical
justification of the growth of " psychical research." No one can possibly
feign to ignore the historical reason of this growth. Had the Society for
Psychical Research never been founded, no psychologist would ever have
troubled to consider even the very most elementary of its problems.

Prof. Jastrow appears to question the logical justification of the S.P.R. pro-
gramme, on the ground that its investigations are sometimes of a physical

XLIV.]

Review.

259

sometimes of a physiological character. We might answer him by pointing to a
number of mixed sciences — to chemical physiology, or to physical chemistry ;
which are but so many illustrations of the continuity of the sciences. But we
prefer to critically examine the view of the functions and limits of psychology
as it is implied (unfortunately not expressed) in some specially curious
passages. The phenomena claimed to occur in the presence of spiritualistic
mediums are by no means new. Their analogues exist in the folk-lore of
almost every land, from China to Peru, and from the North Pole to the
South. Anthropology has always considered it as its function to trace back
a. myth to its sources, to map out the course of the spreading belief. But it
has never been able to go back to the fons et origo. Whether any pheno-
menon occurred which could reasonably have given rise to the myth ; what
relation there was between the fact and the belief about the fact— these are
■questions which the historical method could not possibly solve. It could
•only trace the transformations of belief, and the first term of its historical
•deduction could but be the subjective belief, not the objective fact. The only
method by which this could be studied was the experimental method. We
had always conceived it to be the great merit of the S.P.R. that it uncom-
promisingly adhered to the rules of scientific logic, and inaugurated the
•experimental investigation of the modern analogues of the old phenomena.
If, then, it be allowed that the investigation of the growth of a myth or
belief is not complete until all its conditions, objective and subjective, have
been discovered, it is no objection to say that the investigation of spiritualism,
for instance, is largely the business of physics, or of some science other than
psychology or anthropology. The objection would only be cogent if it could
be shown that the investigation was complete at any given point. In so far
as anthropology erected hypotheses as to the relation between a given belief
and the fact believed in, it cannot censure psychical research for having
sought experimental verification of such hypotheses.

The same argument holds of psychology with regard, e.g., to the pro-
blem of telepathy, in so far as psychology abandons the stand-point
of absolute subjectivism. It is no doubt an instructive task to expound
what used to be called the " laws of mind," to trace the processes by
which the various material of presentation gets woven into a complex
whole. Some of Professor Jastrow's expressions seem to imply that
the psychologist's interest begins and ends with the discovery of
neat illustrations of the working of various mental tendencies. Thus he
finds "interesting psychological points in such diverse occupations as the
actor's profession, in juggling, in tricks of skill, in advertising, in religious
revivals, eta" He speaks of the evidence in proof of telepathy as being
u capable of psychological interpretation," and containing " illustrations of
obscure and subtle mental processes." Does he mean that any endeavour to
pass from the subjective to the objective is extra-psychological ; that, for
instance, a psychological theory of colour-vision has no right to take into
account either physical conceptions of wave-motion or physio-chemical con-
ceptions of nerve-processes ; that the sphere of psychical objects — to use

260

F. N. Hales.

[part

MUnsterberg's terminology — can and must be completely separated froec the
sphere of physical objects ; that psychology, as a science of psychical elements
and their laws of combination, has no right to, and no interest in, relating
these, psychical elements to anything outside them ? Psychology, on such a
conception, becomes individual and subjective with a vengeance. The con-
ception is worth elaborating, and we readily confess that psychical research
is not compatible with it We could not but allow that, although psychical
research offered the psychologist much interesting illustrative material, yet
its main interest was extra-psychological. In the same way, did anthro-
pology choose to adopt a standpoint of radical subjectivism, and to main tarn
it consistently, our arguments would have no force.

But Professor Jastrow shows no symptoms of such a consistency.
The principle implied on the one page is denied on the next ; and
we find after all that the only reason for Professor J astro w*s state-
ments is that "logical" science is perfectly cognisant of the objective
significance of this or that order of phenomena (spiritualistic, tele-
pathic, etc.), i.e. that the only feature of interest about them is just the
subjective feature. This naturally is a matter of proof. The difference
between the "psychical researcher" and the psychologist of Prof. J astro*-*
type is just that the one seeks experimental evidence where the other »
content with an analogical argument The difference of attitude is total
but there is no essential difference between the two conceptions of psychology
It is only from the standpoint of radical subjectivism that any exception can
be taken to psychical research on the ground that it calls in the aid of
physics or physiology, or any other science. And if that point of view be
abandoned, psychology must go the whole length of psychical research. Just
as, on the ordinary view, any other but a psycho-physical theory of, say,
colour-vision must be quite devoid of significance, eo with regard to halluci-
nations, including the so-called telepathic hallucinations, we can rest satisfied
with none but a psycho- physical theory. The ordinary rules of inductive
logic will apply here as elsewhere ; and the question whether two phenomena
A and B, which are contiguous in time, are or are not connected as cause and
effect, admits essentially of the same kind of solution, be the phenomena
what they may. We cannot allow that Prof. Jastrow has shown the guiding
principles of the founders of the S.P.R. to be in any way illogical. The
existence of the Society can readily be justified on scientific, practical, and
historical grounds. So long as its work has not been taken up by official
laboratories, these grounds will retain their old cogency. It is no less easy
to show that the problems with which it has dealt, and the methods with
which it has treated them, are an inevitable development of old problems
unsatisfactorily solved, and of antiquated methods logically incomplete,
Between psychical research and psychology there can be no possible opposi-
tion ; and the only real danger which the latter has to fear from the former
is that the psychologist should misunderstand the aims and methods of the
psychical researcher.

We need not examine Professor Jastrow's essay on " The Logic of Mental

XLIV.]

Review.

261

Telegraphy" in detail. What is new in his criticisms we have already
answered by implication. In the main he has repeated the arguments
brought forward by Herr Parish some years ago, and so completely refuted
by Mrs. Sidgwick. When Prof. J astro w remarks that "it is only necessary
to be interested in coincidences in order to discover them on all sides,1' we
cannot find that he contributes anything to the debate. On the one hand, a
leadiug interest is necessary to the discovery of coincidences, whatever they
maybe, — whether the botanist endeavours to find out the analogies of structure
common to various plants, or the zoologist to classify an organism hitherto
unknown to him. And it is equally clear that such an interest may to some
extent create these very coincidences. Secondary resemblances may be
magnified, primary differences overlooked, and so forth. The danger in this
respect is common to all scientific research alike. But if Prof. Jastrow
means that a person interested in so-called telepathic hallucinations will
most likely notice a coincidence between a hallucination and some other
event, this is a question which can only be solved one way or the other by
positive evidence. It has been examined at length in the " Report on the
Census of Hallucinations," and we see no reason to reject the solution
therein reached.

Another kind of argument equally devoid of cogency is the following : all
sorts of coincidences have a law-abiding character. There is a statistical
regularity about the yearly number of births and deaths and marriages, or of
unaddressed letters thrown into the post. "The experience of offering au
article to an editor and receiving a reply to the effect that another article
dealing with the same topic in a similar way was already awaiting the com-
positor is not unusual" It would be interesting, indeed, to know whether
the number of death-coincidences had this kind of statistical regularity, or
whether the number of right cases in experiments on thought-transference
performed under identical conditions presented a law-abiding character.
But this does not in the least alter the logical status of the question. If the
number of right cases or the number of coincidental hallucinations were
greater than the theory of probability allowed for, we should nevertheless be
obliged to draw the conclusion that some cause other than chance was in
operation.

When Prof. Jastrow goes on to consider whether the hypothesis of tele-
pathy is scientifically legitimate or not, he forgets that the hypothesis has for
the present the smallest possible positive content, that it makes no kind of
assumption with regard to the manner of connection of the phenomena, — the
coincidence which it affirms to be not due to chance alone. It affirms that
a state of consciousness (a) of a subject A is connected with a state (b) of a
subject B ; but whether this connection be direct or indirect, or what is the
precise relation between the two phenomena, these are questions which it
cannot attempt seriously to answer. It asserts a causal relation, but does
not explain the causal process. The " telepathy -hypothesis " should be con-
sidered, therefore, as nothing more and nothing less than the statement of a
problem. That there is a problem we hold to have been sufficiently proved.

262

F. N. Hales.

[put

To ask whether the data of the problem are scientifically legitimate or
is simply devoid of meaning. The data simply are, and science fast *
consider them.

But we readily agree with Prof. Jastrow that the attitude " which ias4
upon a detailed and exact explanation of concrete personal experiences7 iti
deplorable and illogical attitude at the stage which the inquiry has reteseda
and the tendency to believe in the personal significance of events is no lest «
be regretted. If psychical research has been misunderstood by its adtw
saries, its friends must bear the greater part of the blame. It is oolj t*
probable that much of its popularity has been due to a love of the myrtenoo*
and to an interest in the peculiar on the part of the general public It
behoves the S.P.R. to make clear to its supporters what its leading prmepk
really are, and to seriously consider Prof. Jast row's words of warniis:
*' Unless most wisely directed, Psychical Research is likely, by not lectag
the right hand know what the left hand is doing, to foster the undeoxibi
propensities of human nature as rapidly as it antagonises them. Lfe
indiscriminate almsgiving, it has possibilities of affording relief, and i
nix king paupers at the same time."

Lack of space forbids more than a very cursory notice of the most imported
contribution to psychology contained in the volume, — "The Dreams of tk
Blind." The general fact that "the mode of functioning of a brain-centzt
depends largely upon its initial education, but that, this education art
completed, the centre can maintain its function, though deprived of seo*-
stimulation " was well worth illustrating by the comparative method. Ther*
appears to be a critical period, which both Heermann (1838) and Jastro*
place between the fifth and seventh years. Persons who go blind before the
fifth year have, as a rule, no visual dreams. Persons who go blind afwi
their seventh year have usually visual dreams. If blinduess occurs between
the fifth and seventh years, the preservation of the visualising power depends
upon the degree of development of the individual We could have wished
that the author had studied the precise relation between the imagery is
waking life and in the dreams of the blind, and had mentioned those cases of
so-called psychical blindness in which the patient still has visual dreams,
although he has lost the power of visual recognition and visual reproduction
in waking life.

The experimental study of involuntary movements has the great merit of
being the first in time of a series of similar researches by other psychologists
in America and elsewhere. A subject's hand, resting free upon a mobile
recording plate, has, according to Prof. Jastrow, a tendency to move towards
the object to which the subject is attending. The experiments are worth
repeating with less primitive apparatus. Prof. Jastrow himself has noticed
the tendency of the arm to move towards the body, yet he neglects to inform
us in many cases whether the right hand or the left was resting on the
recording-plate. We are not told how many different subjects he experi-
mented with, nor under what conditions ; whether they knew the purpose of
the experiment, or were ignorant of it ; what kind of a tracing was obtained

LIV.]

Review.

263

. each case when the subject's attention was not directed to anything in
. irticular. This latter point is specially important, as no two subjects under
iese conditions appear to yield identical, or indeed closely similar tracings,
^he technical deficiencies of the apparatus and the small number of the pub-
shed tracings prevent us from placing any confidence in the results.

F. N. Hales.

La Suggestibility, par Dr. Alfred Binet (Paris, Schleicher freres, 1900.
•p. 400).

Psycho-physiology progresses in the same way as physics and the other
tranches of natural science, though perhaps more slowly. Each contribution,
iowever small, adds to the exactness of analysis, and to the solidity of the
' vhole scientific structure. But there is another form of psychology, let us
jail it introspective or " individual " psychology, which does not advance in
,he same way. For instance, since the introduction of hypnotism and
suggestion as subjects of scientific investigation, hundreds of books and
pamphlets have appeared on these questions, of which only very few, perhaps,
ten or twenty, were really steps in advance. Most of them may be safely
left unread by the student, unless they contain material for discussion, — well
observed and reliable facts.

Dr. Binet's last book on suggestibility may be considered a step in advance.
It is the first successful attempt to bring clearness into this loosely used and,
vaguely defined term. It describes methods of investigation, and defines the-
distinctions between suggestion and other conceptions, such as " hypnotism."
The two terms, hypnotism and suggestion, are usually mixed up in a
hopeless way, and not only by laymen. In Dr. Binet's book hypnotism is.
absolutely excluded from the field of observation. We have to do with
suggestion and suggestibility pure and simple.

Suggestibility is treated here as a normal quality of the healthy human
individual, — a quality which is never altogether lacking, but which varies in
intensity between rather wide limits, while its excess merges into the
pathological. According to Dr. Binet, it is possible to measure the degree of
this quality, and to give in figures the co-efficient of suggestibility for each
individual. The methods and experiments by which he attempts to show
this are admirably ingenious, but his desire for exactness often leads him to*
numerical results of very doubtful value, because of the small number of
experiments. What can be deduced from statistics in individual psychology
derived from experiments with 46 persons ?

But nevertheless, what is most valuable, the methods are indicated and a
beginning is made. Dr. Binet will agree with us in expecting different
results when not scores but thousands of individuals have been tested.

The book is extremely important on account of the wide scope of this same
quality, " suggestibility," the study of which is necessary not only for the
psychologist and the philosopher, but for the medical student, the student of"
law, and especially for the teacher.

Digitized by

264

Dr. F. van Eeden.

[fab

Dr. Biuet has studied methodically and defined scientifically facte and ids*
which were not altogether unknown, which have even become rooted in t&*
popular belief in the form of anecdotes and proverbs. Bat the teacher
by dint of his carefully guarded authority stamps on his young pupil as*
artificial belief or unnatural creed never to be eradicated, or the judge entrap
ping an innocent but suggestible person to his doom by subtle and persaaw
questioning, are instances of the terrible meaning of the vaguely noted £tea>
Indeed, this book, if carefully read, will open more eyes to the extreex
danger of authoritative teaching and bias on the part of tbe judicial enqarff
than all the warnings of moralists. Any one of common sense will see «ftff
perusal of these simple experiments that it is absolutely necessary to ebaafr
our general principles of education, to do away as much as possible vita
influence of personal authority or prestige on the side of the teacher, sad t>
teach our children independence of judgment, and the power of using thr-
own eyes instead of those of the master. When we apply the lessons of tats
book to the great social, political, and religious movements of the maa*»-
subjects wisely not touched upon by the author — their significance beceae
enormous, and the necessity of a widespread study of them most evident

The terms " automatism " and " suggestibility " are not so clearly <fc
tinguished as hypnotism aud suggestion. Indeed, the experiments is*
speculations about " automatism " are the weakest parts of the book.

In Dr. P. Janet's well-known book, L Automatism* Psychologiquc, r«?
different phenomena were gathered together under the name of automates.
In this book it was the facts rather than their classification which were d«f£
upon, aud it seems to me that Dr. Binet'a treatment increases the difficult?
instead of solving it.

We apply the word "automaton" to a thing which can move by itself, with-
out any impulse from without The materialistic school of the last center?
considered the whole human organism an automaton, denying that it wa*
moved by that force of superhuman origin which we call will, or soaL IV
present use of the word " automatism " for a part only of the organism sees*
to involve a tacit assumption that the whole is not purely automatic Aod
it is clear that unless the mystical or superhuman agent can act always and
everywhere, automatism must play a part in the organism.

But the experiments of Dr. Binet taken alone might lead many reader*
to the conclusion — apparently shared by the author — that it is now proved
that in the so-called automatic writing of mediums, no superhuman or extra
human agency is ever present. This conclusion, however, is by no mean*
justified by the facts. In his experiments, Dr. Binet simply takes a few
fragments of the complicated human organism, and makes them act spon-
taneously in an automatic way by patient and ingenious devices, Such
procedure is no proof at all that the same disintegration cannot be performed
by some other external influence, human or non-human. This fallacious
conclusion is not indeed explicitly drawn, but it seems to be implied.

F. van Esdv.

Review.

265

Hypnotism and Suggestion in Therapeutics, Education, and Reform, by
€fc. Osgood Mason, A.M., M.D. (Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co.
"Liondon, 1901.)

Under the above title Dr. Osgood Mason has brought together in a small
book of some 340 large type pages, a mass of speculation, observation, and
criticism (together, I may add, with not a little rhetoric), touching almost
all the phenomena, or alleged phenomena, which are usually considered
subjects of psychical research, as well as a good deal else besides. Hypnotism
and the ethics of it, the subconscious mind, life and the underlying reality,
clairvoyance, telepathy, Reichenbach, oriental occultism, all pass under
review. The result is a readable, discursive, and very miscellaneous book,
of, it must be confessed, somewhat unequal value, but of very consider-
able interest where the author's own personal observation and practical
experience are concerned. It would seem that in the transparent atmosphere
of the continent across the Atlantic, just as distant physical objects are made
to look closer than they really are, so there in a tendency to regard as very
near at hand the solution of problems which to European enquirers still
appear but dimly apprehended. And I venture to think that in his anxiety
to construct a theory which will harmonize and co-ordinate all the various
subjects with which he deals, Dr. Mason has shown himself somewhat
influenced by this tendency and has perhaps allowed himself to assume a
greater degree of familiarity with their nature than is altogether warranted
by the general state of knowledge concerning them. The hypnotic state
which, in at least one European school, and probably by the public at large
almost universally, has been considered to be a more or less pathological and
exceptional condition, is here, implicitly at least, treated as the manifestation
of a universal psychic force, its scope only limited by our experience, and
its invocation for a given purpose, ethically considered, as indifferent as that
of electricity or any other similar force in nature.

Many instances of its successful therapeutic application are given, and one
cannot help thinking that Dr. Mason has perhaps been exceptionally fortu-
nate in his subjects, or, as one would prefer to believe, exceptionally skilful
in his treatment of them. For although, in other annals, examples of the
reformation of inebriates and of the morally perverted are often quoted,
which are as remarkable as certain cases in Dr. Mason's own experience,
the general results of hypnotic treatment of such patients do not on the
whole seem to fulfil the expectations of some of the more enthusiastic
experimenters of a few years back ; and though it is true, as Dr. Mason says,
that undue conservatism has altogether prevented its adoption in some
quarters, it is none the less true that a more extended experience in other
quarters of the uncertainty of its results has led to a considerable
limitation of its employment. Dr. Mason indeed calls attention to the fact
that the general feeling of the medical profession is that the therapeutic
usefulness of hypnotism is very limited. It may be presumed that if this
feeling still persists after all these years of systematic investigation of the

266

E. Feilding.

[part

capabilities of suggestive treatment, it caimot be entirely traceable to
prejudice or ignorance. While in words Dr. Mason disavows any wish to
claim for it either miraculous results or general applicability to the majority
of persons, the impression left on the mind of a reader of his book is that in
fact he is far more optimistic regarding its ultimate universal value than
certain of his phrases would suggest. A chapter is devoted to the educa-
tional use of hypnotism and some remarkable instances of succesrful
treatment of cases difficult to deal with by other methods are given. I mar
select the following for citation: "A generally intelligent, but uneducated
woman, 35 years of age, although a good reader, experienced the greatest
difficulty in spelling ; she never wrote a letter without being obliged to
consult a dictionary for the majority of words. . . . She was an excellent
hypnotic subject. . . . One day, now a year ago, she asked me if I could not
do something by suggestion for her troublesome inability to spelL I replied
that I would make the trial if she desired. Accordingly, I suggested u
f ollow8 : * You can read ; the correct form of every word you wish to write
is already in your mind ; now when you are in doubt you will not try to
think how the word is spelled ; you will become passive and at once an
impression of the correct spelling of the word will come to you, and you will
write it without doubting or lookiug in the dictionary to see if it is right
The effect was immediate, and after two or three treatments, in order to
show the improvement, and express her gratitude, she wrote me a four page
letter, without consulting the dictionary, and in which were only two or
three errors in spelling. Her language was roost markedly that of an
uneducated person. She constantly omitted her final g*s — said ' says I,' and
was entirely regardless of singular and plural in the use of nominatives and
verbs. Half a dozen suggestions removed these errors in an astonishing
manner, so that her language is now that of a fairly educated woman — not
faultless, but good"

The following is one of Dr. Mason's most interesting examples of his suc-
cess in the reformation of character. " A little boy, seven years of age, was a
most unhappy coward — afraid of the slightest pain, and a coward and cry-baby
among his playmates. He had some slight disease of the scalp which it was
necessary to treat, but he would cry and run away the moment I entered the
room. After one or two unhappy and only partially successful attempts at
treatment, I decided to try suggestion. Placing him in a chair opposite me,
I took his face and head firmly between my hands, and putting my face near
his, I commanded him to look steadily in my eyes. It was very difficult to
secure his attention, but having succeeded, I soothed him with passes and
light touches, until his eyelids drooped ; he was perfectly quiet, subjective
and sleepy, but not asleep. I then suggested that he would no longer be a
crying, whimpering coward, but a strong, brave boy ; that he would take his
treatment without fear, and that he would stand up sturdily for his rights
among his fellows. This was repeated over and over, gently, but firmly ; he
all the while remaining passive and sleepy, and apparently taking no notice
whatever of my suggestions. The next time I called he was shy, but not

Digitized by

XLIV.]

Review.

troublesome, and with two or three repetitions of the suggestions he came
promptly and bravely to his treatment.

" I was also informed that the change in his manner among his playmates
was equally marked ; certainly all cringing and cowardly manner had dis-
appeared, and he seemed self-reliant and happy."

These are interesting examples of an application of hypnotism in which
Dr. Mason expects to see great developments in the next half-century,
whereby it will be placed " among the most highly prized agents for good in
use among intelligent well-wishers of humanity."

To the objection so often urged against the justifiability of hypnotic treat-
ment on the ground of its being an interference with free will, Dr. Mason
devotes a good deal of space. He quotes a father who said he would rather
his son should go wrong of his own free will, than right by having that free
will interfered with by hypnotism. Yet what, he asks in effect, is education
itself but the interference with the free will of the child by the presentation
of motives for action in the right direction so continued as to be, in the long
run, irresistible? Your son offends, and you seek to lead him from his
offending by exhortation, by instruction, by the constant presentation of
higher ideals, by punishments. If you succeed, you will have influenced his
will. If you fail, what is the conclusion ? Either that the motives for a
change of conduct have been of insufficient strength, or that the boy's mind
has not been sufficiently impressionable, by reason of other distracting causes,
to appreciate them. If through hypnotism you are able to eliminate this
distraction, to increase the impressionability of his mind, to present the
motives for improvement in such a form that they will be acted upon, where
is the harm ? In what way is his individuality more tampered with than by
the other and unsuccessful method of dealing with him ?

If the question went no further than this, I take it that there could be but
one reasonable answer, and that favourable to Dr. Mason's contention. But
the problem is somewhat wider. We must ask ourselves how far, quite
apart from the particular victory over the particular fault, we have upset the
normal balance between the conscious and the sub-conscious planes ; how far
the temporary emergence of the latter into consciousness may not result in
a tendency to intrude there increasingly in the future ; and to what extent
the habit of reliance on external suggestions may result in a restriction of
spontaneous effort We still know little of the true nature of hypnotism ;
little of what actually takes place when we probe into the hidden depths
beneath consciousness, and of the possible lesions, unperceived and perhaps
unperceivable, that may result from our intrusion among the secret fibres
of being. The bulk of trustworthy evidence does indeed, so far as I am
justified in attempting to weigh it, appear to show that in the hands of a
cautious operator the use of hypnotic suggestion is unattended by any
general harmful results. But the habitual therapeutic use of hypnotism is
still confined to a comparatively small number of specialists, and it seems
still somewhat premature to lay down its complete and invariable inno-
cuity almost as an axiom, as Dr. Mason appears to do, and to inculcate such

Digitized by Google

268

Mrs. A. W. VenuU.

[part

widespread application of its influence as from liis book he evidently eon-

Madame Piper et la SocUtd A nglo-Americaine pour les Recherche* PsychiqucL,
by M. Sage, with a Preface by Camillb Flammarion (Paris, 1902).

The name of Mrs. Piper is well known to all who have any interest in the
observation of trance-mediums, but definite and accurate knowledge of the
phenomena of her trance is not easily accessible to those outside the small
circle of genuine students who are prepared to read the volumes of detailed
reports and criticism that have appeared in the Proceedings of the Society for
Psychical Research. This little book, consisting of some twenty chapters,
has been produced by Monsieur Sage in the interests of French readers ; bat
it is to be recommended to all who wish for a clear and accurate general
statement of the case of Mrs. Piper, as an introduction to the detailed study
of the first-hand reports essential to the serious student of such phenomena.

Monsieur Sage gives an account of the origin of the trance, and of the
various phases of its development during the fifteen years that Mia. Piper
has been under the close observation of the Society for Psychical Research,
and, in particular, of the Secretary of the American Branch, Dr. Richard
Hodgson. He treats in a thoroughly impartial spirit the many and compli-
cated questions suggested by an examination of the evidence ; he allows no
personal bias to interfere with his statement of the various hypotheses that
have been put forward in explanation of the facts, nor to determine his
selection of the incidents to be narrated. His condensed accounts of the
general character of the sittings described at length in the Society's Pro-
ceedings are vivid and correct, and the reviewer has detected no inaccuracies
of statement where cases are quoted in illustration of particular points. It
is true that in some instances the racy vernacular of " Dr. Phinuit " has not
been wholly intelligible to the foreigner ; to " swop hats," for instance, is
represented by " jeter a terre les chapeaux des passants"; but careful com-
parison with the first-hand reports — a task much facilitated by Monsieur
Sage's chronological treatment of his subject and his constant references to
the original publications — has not revealed more than two or three such slips,
and in no case has the error had any effect upon the evidential value of the
incident related.

The author expressly disclaims originality ; he has himself no first-hand
knowledge of the phenomena described ; his aim is to embody in a popular
and readable form the results of long and careful investigations by others.
This he has successfully accomplished ; the reader closes his little volume
with a considerable knowledge of the facts observed, and a clear idea of the
various theories that have been held or discussed by the actual observers,
It contains a very good summary of the results of the laborious investigations
of Professor Hyslop, — the latest contribution to our knowledge of the Piper
phenomena, — and has been brought up to date by the inclusion of the
sensational article in the New York Herald of October last, and Mrs. Piper's

templates.

E. FsiLDUfG.

XLIV.]

Review;

269

<lenial of the statements and intentions therein attributed to her. The book
is brightly and pleasantly written, and one is tempted to regret, in the
interest of the reader unacquainted with French, that there is no similar

Magic and Religion, by Andrew Lang. (Longmans, Green and Co. 8vo.
pp. 316. Londou, 1901.)

This volume is, for the most part, a continuous criticism of Mr. Frazer's
Golden Bough. Mr. Lang and Mr. Frazer disagree almost in toto as to
the facts which are held to explain the origin of religions. The former
tends in the direction of a " primitive illumination " which has been gradu-
ally lowered in tone side by side with the progress of mankind in other
respects, the steady decline of religion keeping pace, oddly enough, with
the steady improvement of social feelings and current morality. Mr.
Frazer on the other hand seeks for the fans et origo of the most exalted
creeds in the rites and practices of primitive magic, and, as is well known,
does not hesitate in the added chapters of his recent edition to offer on
these lines an explanation of the great tragedy of Calvary itself.

With the main contents of Magic and Religion the psychical researcher
has little to do, despite the deep interest possessed by Mr. Lang's delightful
pages for the student of anthropology and folklore. Even the final chapter
—dealing with the "Fire Walk" — which possesses a more direct interest
for the psychical investigator, has to a large extent already appeared in
the Proceedings of the S.P.R. But a quantity of fresh evidence has been
added by Mr. Lang, and in view of this he has withdrawn the " psychical "
explanation which he formerly offered in "Modern Mythology and now
leaves the question open with the implied conviction that it is one for
the physician and physiologist alone. Nevertheless it is not easy to see
why this change of front should be derived from the cases, cited by
Mr. Lang, where Europeans have taken part in the fire-walk, and from
Dr. Hocken's examination of the. natives of Fiji iu 1898. In the former
of these two cases — that reported by Col. Gudgeon — the reporter expressly
states that the priest said to Mr. Goodwin : " I hand my mana (power)
over to you, lead your friends across," that they then "stepped boldly "
across the fiery surface and three of the four Europeans got across un-
scathed, while one was badly burnt who, like Lot's wife, "looked behind
him," i.e. probably, lost courage and began to think of bolting. The
Colonel adds: "A man must have mana to do it; if he has not, it will
be too late when he is on the hot stone of Tama-ahi-roa." In the second
case Dr. Hocken mentions " intense faith " as a possible explanation, though
he thinks it highly improbable, for he finds it "difficult to see how any
mental state can prevent the action of physical law." Difficult indeed 1
Nevertheless it may be that the Neoplatonic philosopher is not wholly
wrong when he speaks of 6 Mov Beht as the real explanation of the phenor
menon : " they walk on fire unharmed, for the god within them does not

work in English.

M. de G. Verrall.

270

E. Bennett.

[part

let fire harm theni." If on the positive side auto-suggestion can produce
" stigmata," or suggestion ab extra can cause the touch of a cold ruler on
a bare arm to elicit a cry of pain, or (Cp. Proceedings, vol. viL p. 204,
pp. 337-345), actually raise a blister, can it be that on the negative side
a similar condition, call it "full assurance," "faith," "mana" — what you
will — may even avail to avert for a time the heat of the glowing stones
from the skin of a fire- walker? How came it that Home's red-hot cinder
felt cool in one person's hand, while it raised a painful blister on that
of another ? Was the poor clergyman whose hand was permanently scarred
by the cinder utterly lacking in the essential mana, or had he forgotten
to put on Mr. Podmore's asbestos glove ?

So much as to the explanation of the phenomenon, when the available
evidence appears to show conclusively that the heat of the material trodden
upon was so intense as to char and destroy the skin of a human being
coming in contact with it under normal conditions. The interesting paper,
however, contributed by Professor Langley (see Journal S.PJL, October,
1901) has proved clearly that the upper layer of stones in an exhibition
of fire-walking which he witnessed in Tahiti was not nearly so hot as it
appeared to be. The basaltic stones in question were such poor conductor*
of heat that even when the lower portion had become red hot, it was
possible to step rapidly over the upper surface without much inconvenience.
There can be no doubt that Mr. Langley in dealing with the fire-walk
before him has proved his point, that " it was not a miracle " ; for the
misprint about the specific gravity of the stone does not really invalidate
his conclusions. Indeed, at first sight, the reader of Mr. Langley's paper
feels inclined to believe that he has before him the true explanation of
every recorded instance of the " fire- walk." The intense heat underneath,
the spurts of flame shooting up from the interstices of the stones, the
comparative coolness of the surface presented to the feet of a cautious
walker — all these factors seem to show how a man can step across the
furnace with safety, while a handkerchief falling into it is charred, a
timid performer, losing his head, blunders between the stones and is badly
burnt, or a boy slipping down is actually killed by the flames.

But despite the prima facie appearance of comprehensiveness attached
to Mr. Langley's evidence, and the irrelevancy of Mr. Lang's criticism
that the fire- walker in the case cited was a "travelling performer,* there
yet remains a considerable mass of testimony which does not appear to
be overthrown by Mr. Langley's experiments and observations. Even
setting aside all cases in which stones are employed for the oven, how
are we to account for the immunity from injury enjoyed by the Nistinares
of Bulgaria or the fire-walkers of Mauritius and Japan ? In these instances
there is good evidence to show that the performers tread with naked
feet upon glowing embers. Colonel Haggard relates that at Tokio in
1899 " people of all ages walked through red-hot charcoal" Mrs. Schwabe,
an eye-witness of a fire- walk iu Mauritius (see Journal S.P.R, December,
1901 X speaks of "masses of red-hot embers to the depth of several inches

XLIV.]

Review.

271

. . . the radiant heat of which was almost unbearable . . . several yards
from the trench.71 A number of large logs carefully arranged might, of
course, be red-hot underneath and fairly cool on the upper surface ; but
this is not the impression conveyed by the above testimony, which seems
to imply the existence of a glowing mass of embers after the logs and
brushwood had been disintegrated by the preliminary blaze.

Some very interesting matter is covered by the appendices to Mr. Lang's
volume. The strange story of St. Dasius' martyrdom is brought forward
by the author of the Golden Bough to show that, as late as the reign
of Diocletian, a yearly feast to Kronoe {i.e. the Saturnalia) was celebrated
in which a man selected by lot was "clad in royal raiment and allowed thirty
days of revelry, after which he was to sacrifice himself at the altar of
Kronos." The tale itself is amplified in one MS. with a mass of that
ecclesiastical padding so familiar to readers of the Vitae Sanctorum,
but it is doubtful if Mr. Lang has really succeeded in undermining the
conclusion drawn by Mr. Frazer, — that the slaying of a victim at the
Saturnalia was still known of and occasionally practised as late as the close
of the third century. Such a practice was, no doubt, at the time ex-
ceedingly rare, but unless the narrator of the martyrdom was aware of
its existence, it is difficult to understand why he introduced it into his
narrative at all. All that is stated is that, at the obscure frontier town
of Dorostolum, such a yearly festival was held and the garrison fell in
with the local observances, as was frequently the case (cp. inscriptions
upon altars found along the Roman wall and elsewhere passim), and selected
one of their own number, Dasius, as the victim. Whether he was a
Christian or a pagan, whether or not he was insolent to the legatus, is
irrelevant to the main point — that, unless the narrator contradicts himself
egregioualy, the young soldier was selected as a victim of the Saturnalia.

As to the third appendix, which deals with the momentous question
whether the events of the Crucifixion week can be identified with certain
alleged customs in vogue at the Feast of Purim, Mr. Lang has ably
demonstrated the one great weakness of Mr. Frazer's theory, viz., the
difference of date between Purim and Holy week. The question is alto-
gether too large for treatment within the limits of this review ; but it
is perhaps worth while to call attention to a small textual point which
is not noticed by either Mr. Lang or Mr. Frazer. Origen, as well as
Jerome, was undoubtedly cognizant of the MS. reading 'lycovv [r6r] Bapappa*
1 'IrfcoQ* rfc» \ey6fMPor Xpc*r6r. Despite the absence of much extrinsic evi-
dence for the authenticity of this strange text, the intrinsic evidence is
very great ; there would be every reason for altering the text in question,
none whatever for inventing it If then the sentence originally ran, "Shall
I liberate unto you Jesus [the] Barabbas or Jesus called Christ?" how
much colour might be lent to Mr. Frazer's theory ! Of the two prisoners
named Jesus, one had been selected to play the part of " Barabbas " — the
"Son of the Father" — who was to be crowned, scourged, and ultimately
slain ; the other was to be set free. But Pilate's humane purpose was

272

N. W. Thoviaa.

[part

frustrated by the cries of the populace, hounded on by the priests to
clamour for the blood of an innocent mau. And so it came to pass that
the original arrangement made by the governor was upset, the criminal
Jesus was liberated, the sinless Jesus became the " Barabbas.75

Dreams and their Meaning*, by Horace G. Hutchinson. (London : Long-
mans, Green & Co., 1901. 8vo, pp. 320 ; price, 9s. 6d. net.)

This is a book which seems to have made itself to a considerable extent
It has grown out of an article published by the author in Longmans* Magazine
On " Common Dreams." This caused a deluge of letters to descend on
Mr. Hutchinson's head, and about one-third of the present work is based
on these letters. The last two chapters, which make up rather more than
another third, are from the hand of a collaborator whose fervent faith was
held to mark him out as a fit and proper person to deal with telepathic and
premonitory dreams. The remaining eighty pages, from the hand of Mr.
Hutchinson, deal in a somewhat less than exhaustive manner with what
science has to say about dreams, with the bearing of dreams on the question
of the origin of religion, with divination, and with interpretations of
dreams — a collection of facts that would have been better placed in the
chapter on divination.

The book does not pretend to be more than a popular work, and it would
be unfair to judge it by scientific standards. Even in a popular work, how-
ever, we might have expected to find some reference to the subliminal
consciousness. There does not seem to be a mention of it in the first part of
the book, however. A little research in the publications of the S.P.R. would
have enabled the author to produce a book that would have been at once
more interesting to the general reader and more useful. By directing
attention to such questions as automatic waking at a specified hour, he
might have induced his readers to bring together a large amount of useful
material.

With the work of the collaborator — a member of the S.P.R., who prefer*
to be nameless — it is unnecessary to deal at great length. The materials are
taken mainly from the Proceedings, but are used in an uncritical spirit, which
gives the unpsychical reviewer only too much occasion to lift up the finger of
scorn. He suggests, for example, that the finding of lost articles through
dreams can only be explained on the theory that " our spirit is conducted by
so-called occult means to the place where the lost article is reposing.1' In the
chapter on premonitory dreams we see evidence of the same fault. Two of
the dream 8 classed as premonitory (pp. 273, 293) seem to be merely telepathic ;
the case on p. 291 does not of necessity involve any more occult source of
information than the subliminal consciousness ; and the same may, perhaps
be said of the cases on pp. 287 and 289. Beyond a vague statement that the
details of the dream on p. 280 were the same as those of the subsequent
accident, there is nothing to show that the dream had any connection with

E. N. Bexxett.

Review.

273

the accident : even if it could be shown that the details were in substantial
agreement, they are such as might apply to many collisions at sea. But
perhaps the most staggering point about the whole chapter is the statement,
quoted from the Report on the Census of Hallucinations, where it refers
to telepathic cases, that premonitory dreams are proved. But so far from
this being the view of the Committee, they expressly say on p. 331 that
the cases with which they deal afford no adequate justification for taking
this view, which introduces vast difficulties. There can be no excuse for a
misstatement of this kind. It is clear that the statistical inquiry which
was necessary to demonstrate the existence of spontaneous telepathy is far
more necessary in the case of premonitory dreams ; the chance coincidences
will in the latter case, apart from the complications introduced by the greater
complexity of dreams, be more numerous in proportion as dreams are more
numerous than waking hallucinations. At present belief in premonitions
is only a superstition. N. W. Thomas.

Elemente der Empirische Teleo?ogie> von Paul NicoJaus Cossmann (Stuttgart,
A. Zimmer's Verlag, 1899).

I wish to draw attention to this book as one of the most important that
has appeared during the last few years. It was published in 1899, but I
think it will come to be considered as one of the first signs of dawn of the
new scientific spirit of our present century.

In fact, in its modest appearance and dry form, it seems to me of no less
importance for us than the essay of Mayer on the conservation of energy was
for the 19th century. It does what every work of high merit has done, — it
formulates what has been in the scientific mind for a long time in a vague
indefinite fashion. It is the scientific revival of teleology after a long night-
mare of determinism — not, however, the old-fashioned teleology, but teleology
in a new and deeper sense.

It contains nothing new, nothing of which a philosopher would not say :
indeed, we knew this long ago. And yet it is entirely new in its thoroughly
scientific method of treatment.

Henceforth no man of science who wishes to escape the name of amateur?
will be able to proclaim determinism as the principle of natural science, and
to discard teleology as purely metaphysical and mystical. Teleology will be
henceforth a scientific principle unavoidably required ; no researcher will be
able to do without it. And this is the result of Cossmann's work.

Besides causal relations, nature shows teleological relations of facts. In a
causal relation, two co-operating causes a and b form the result c, a and b being
constant, c being exclusively determined by a and b. In a teleological
relation a and c are constant, and determine the secondary cause b.

These two forms of relation do not exclude each other, but exist together.
The causal relation is always there, but it is not alone. The teleological relation
does not exist without causality, yet it is not causality.

To give an instance : The protective colour of a butterfly is a link in a

274

N. W. Thmnas.

[PART

teleological relation, yet it could not exist if the chemical matter which forms
the colour was not present in the animal, as a causal factor.

And I consider it a stroke of genius in Cossmann's work to draw a definite
distinction between what we call living and non-living nature with regard to
the teleological relationship. In this way the old contention about vitalism
is finally settled, a simple, clear and scientific definition being given, whk±
cannot be mistaken nor lead to error ; to the effect, namely, that in natural
sciences we distinguish two series of observable facts — one series (non-living
nature) which is without a teleological relation, the other series (living nature)
which is invariably related teleologically as well as causally.

Fact and Fancy in Spiritualism, Thcosophyy and Psychical Rmearck, by
G. C. Hubbell. (Cincinnati : Robert Clarke Co., 1901 . 8vo, pp. vi +9-20&)

This work is the outcome of a series of lectures delivered by the author
before the Ohio Liberal Society of Cincinnati The four lectures which com-
pose it were not originally destined for publication, as the author informs us.
and have apparently undergone little or no revision, with the natural result
that there is a certain lack of continuity and an occasional want of firmne»
of treatment This does not, however, detract seriously from the interest of
the book, which is not intended to be more than a popular exposition of the
subject It will be found eminently readable by amateurs, who will not
only appreciate the easy style in which it is written, but may also profit by
the sane view taken by Mr. Hubbell.

The first three chapters deal with Madame Blavatsky, and with the bearing
of the results hitherto attained in Psychical Research on the questions of
belief in a future life and on the materialistic theory ; in a final chapter,
based to some extent on personal experience, the author gives some account
of the frauds of Spiritualism, but at the same time suggests that there is an
element which neither fraud nor hallucination can explain. In some of his
remarks on Spiritualism Mr. Hubbell hardly seems to appreciate the extent
to which our standards of evidence have risen during the past twenty-five
years. He quotes the experiments of De Gasparin and the DialecticaJ
Society, together with those of Sir W. Crookes, in proof of his assertion that
" the movement of ponderable objects without physical contact, such move-
ment displaying intelligence, ... is established beyond all question." In
view of our increased knowledge of the possibilities of fraud and of the falli-
bility of human testimony, even if we make allowance for the fact that the
experiments took place under specially favourable conditions and that Home
was never detected in trickery, this expression is too strong. It may be that
Home was exceptional in his gifts, and that we can for this reason hardly
hope for speedy confirmation of the observations of Sir W. Crookes ; bat
that confirmation is needed the experimenter himself would probably be the
first to admit

In the chapter on Psychical Research and a Future Life, the author,

F. van Ekdkk.

XLIV.]

Review.

275

after dealing with the Piper case, goes on to explain the bearing of the
theory of telepathy on the belief in a future state of existence, but his argu-
ment hardly carries conviction. On p. 99 he states that the fundamental
contention of materialism — that body and mind are so connected and related
that the action of the mind is entirely confined to the body, and dies with
the body — is shaken, if not overthrown (presumably by the fact of telepathy).
But even if it is not true, as the author expressly states on p. 129, that
telepathy can in all probability be explained in terms of matter and motion,
i.e. on a materialistic hypothesis, — it is clear that we have in telepathy from
the living no basis for arguing that the soul will survive death. Perliaps the
passage in question is intended to apply rather to the Piper case, but if this
is so, the choice of words is unfortunate. The argument should clearly be
based, not on the telepathic, but on the spiritistic theory. It may be that
both the telepathic and the spiritistic hypotheses involve telepathy ; but
the important fact, from Mr. Hubbell's point of view, is in this case not
telepathy, but the source from which the telepathic impulse comes. The
question is naturally one which will appeal to many of Mr. Hubbell's
readers, and it is a pity that he should not have made his point quite clear.

N. W. Thomas.

Digitized by

Google

XON31 'UOJLSV

Aavsanongnd

aaOA M3N 3HX

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research.

PART XLV.
February, 1903,

PROCEEDINGS OF GENERAL MEETINGS.

The 117th General Meeting of the Society was held in the Hall at
20 Hanover Square, London, W., on Friday, May 30th, 1902, at
8.30 p.m.; Mr. F. Podmore in the chair.

A paper by Mr. W. W. Skeat, entitled "Malay Spiritualism,"
was read by Mr. N. W. Thomas. This paper is printed below.

The 118th General Meeting was held in the same place on Friday,
November 14th, 1902; Mr. A. F. Shand in the chair.

Mr, F. G. S. Schiller read a paper on "Human Sentiment with
regard to a Future Life," which, it is hoped, will appear in a future
Part of the

Digitized by Google

278

Proceediiags of General Meetings.

[pakt

The 119th General Meeting was held in the same place on Friday,
January 30th, 1903, at 8.30 p.m. ; the President, Sir Olivek
Lodge, in the chair.

The President delivered an Address, which will appear in the
next Part of the Proceedings.

XLV.]

Some Experiments in Hypnotism.

279

SOME EXPERIMENTS IN HYPNOTISM.

By "Edward Greenwood.

[It must be explained that the author of the following paper — a
gentleman well known to the Editor and to the Council of the
Society — has adopted the pseudonym of "Edward Greenwood " in
order not to risk betraying the identity of his friend "M.," the
subject, by disclosing his own. It is for this reason that the Council
has sanctioned the appearance of the paper under a pseudonym. —
Editor.]

I offer the following notes of a series of experiments in hypnotism
with my friend M. with some diffidence, aware that they contain
no such circumstances of exceptional importance as would perhaps
alone justify their being brought forward now that the general
phenomena have been so completely examined and described. The
results achieved in this series do not transcend those which may
usually be expected with a fairly susceptible subject. The fact,
however, that the experiments were conducted with an educated
subject, himself greatly interested in the development of phenomena
with which he had previously been unacquainted, and to the examina-
tion of which he was able to bring an acute and discriminating
intelligence, and an unusual power of self-analysis, lends them a
certain interest. It is, in my experience, so rare that an operator
finds himself assisted in this way by a subject, at once thoroughly
trustworthy and normal, while possessing a high degree of hypnotic
susceptibility, that I am encouraged to think the results may not
be unworthy of description.

My friend M. is a young man aged 22, quick and alert in mind,
and of an enthusiastic and decidedly nervous temperament, highly
idealistic and with considerable literary gifts. At present engaged
in teaching, he has much influence with boys, in his treatment of
whom he shows both initiative and judgment. He is interested in

280

Edward Greenwood.

[part

athletic pursuits and takes as much part in them as constitutional
weakness of the lungs will allow. Formerly afflicted with consumption,
this disease, which was taken in time and is no longer active, has left
him physically delicate and incapacitated for much bodily effort. It
also, no. doubt, left his nervous system in a somewhat hypersensitive
condition. I wish, however, to emphasise the fact that he is essentially
normal and responsible, of robust character and of decided intellectual
ability.

Having witnessed one or two simple hypnotic experiments, M.
evinced much interest in the subject, but at first expressed dis-
inclination to submit to any himself. On the question subsequently
recurring in conversation, however, I asked to be allowed to test
his susceptibility, engaging at the same time to refrain from an?
experiment. He consented, and after a very, short procedure, 1
succeeded in closing his eyes. As soon as I had demonstrated his
inability to open them, I immediately restored him to his normal
state, but, interested by this small experience, he appeared to lose
his former distaste, and thereupon invited me to test systematically
the extent of the influence. This, then, was the genesis of the
series of experiments, some 20 or 30 in number, which I now hare
it in hand to describe.

The actual process of hypnotisation has always been of the most
simple and rapid description. Almost from the first, it has only
been necessary, after he has composed himself for the experiment,
to say the word " sleep," and he immediately passes into the hypnotic
state. The trance is not a deep one ; he retains full consciousness
of himself, and his mental powers undergo no change, except in so
far as he is amenable to suggestions given by myself. His memory,
after awakening, is practically continuous, and while he is, during
the trance, otherwise completely susceptible to post-hypnotic sugges-
tion, I am wholly unable, by this means, to produce any lasting
break between his hypnotic and his normal consciousness. In the
course of the experiments, the character of the trance underwent
several changes to which I shall later refer. His degree of suscepti-
bility has, however, not varied ; certain limitations to my power of
suggestion presented themselves in the first experiments, and have
not since been modified.

It is not my purpose to describe in detail the experiments in which
we engaged, except in so far as may be necessary in order to give
M.'s own description of his sensations while undergoing them. The
experiments were of the ordinary character: all attempts to produce

XLV.]

Some Experiments in Hypnotism.

281

any of the higher class of alleged phenomena, such as thought-
transference, clairvoyance, or even augmentation of the faculties of
sense, being complete failures.

I now proceed to give a general account of M.'s condition.

The injunction to sleep immediately places him in a state of sug-
gestibility. In the latter experiments he passed directly into this
state without any apparent external change whatever taking place ;
though in the earlier experiments, the change was marked by the
involuntary closing of the eyes, which he immediately asked, and
obtained, permission to open again. Beyond a slight alteration in
his manner, imperceptible to a third person who was not forewarned,
and frequently difficult even for myself to appreciate, there is, ever
since the first few experiments, no extornal difference between his
trance and his normal condition. During the former, however, he
is physically completely under my control, any movement being
either inhibited by the merest gesture on my part, or performed in
obedience to an expressed wish. M. tells me that he experiences
no sense of compulsion by me: — an inhibited movement seeming to
be inhibited at its source in his will. Thus, if I tell him that he
cannot do a certain thing, he agrees. If I then desire him to try
to do it, he explains that he could make the movement if he wished,
but that he does not wish. If I then desire him to wish it, he
declines. Similarly, an action which I tell him to perform is performed
apparently as a free exercise of his own will, and because he prefers
to perform it, and the full consciousness that it is a suggestion from
myself makes no difference to the sensation of free choice. I have,
however, been able to show him that a suggestion to perform some
indifferent action such as to sit in a particular chair, or to reveal
the position of a hidden coin, which he had previously, while in his
normal state, at my instance deliberately made up his mind he would
not perform, and which he still objected to perform in his trance
state, could nevertheless not be resisted if sufficiently often reiterated.

His sensuous suggestibility is strictly limited to certain only of
the senses. Taking in order the various senses, I found that I could
affect them as follows :

(1.) The sense of sight proved quite insusceptible. I could neither
suggest a visual hallucination, nor produce any hallucinated variations
of colour or form, nor vender invisible a present object.

(2.) The sense of hearing was also refractory. I could neither
produce a hallucinated sound, nor render real sounds inaudible,

(3.) Smell and taste were under my control, and I could either

282

Edward Greenwood.

[part

produce a feeling of nausea by suggesting an abominable odour, or
vary the taste of things that he might eat or drink. A glass of
water took on, according to my direction, the taste of spirits or of
wine, followed, if so suggested, by appearances of complete intoxica-
tion. A piece of soap which I informed him was of rarest quality,
and tasted like chocolate, he ate with much relish till I suddenly woke
him up. This experiment was proposed by himself, and he retained
throughout the full consciousness that, in point of fact, the soap
was soap, and not chocolate.

(4.) As regards the sense of feeling, I was able to produce, but
not abolish, the sensation of pain. Thus, while I failed to produce
anaesthesia, even to the slightest degree, a suggestion that his chair
was hot, or that he had a toothache, would succeed. He would explain
during its continuance, that he knew the suggestion was false, and
that the pain was not genuinely felt, that the symptoms of discomfort
which he exhibited seemed to proceed direct from the suggestion,
and the actual discomfort to be deduced from the symptoms. Thus
a suggestion that there was a pin in his chair caused him to move
uneasily, and to be unable to stop doing so. He said that nevertheless
he did not actually feel the physical sensation of pricking, but merely
a kind of localized moral discomfort consequent upon his inability
to cease showing the uneasiness due to the suggestion of a physical
one. A curious result was obtained by giving a suggestion affecting
senses respectively subject, and refractory to, my influence. Thus
a declaration that he was on the bank of a river and required to
cross to the other side, to be fully successful, would involve a visual
hallucination — which, as before explained, I was unable to produce—
and a tactile hallucination (which was within my power). While
seeing nothing before him but the carpet, therefore, he nevertheless
felt, on stepping on it, the coldness of the water, and while perfectly
conscious that there was no visible river, he found it necessary,
when told to cross, spontaneously to take off his shoes and stockings,
and roll up his trousers in order to avoid the irresistible suggestion
of getting wet. He protested at the same time against the absurdity
of his doing so, but explained that he found the precaution followed
inevitably from the fear of the sensation of wet.

Suggested impersonations were also fully executed, unless they
trenched too blatantly upon the absurd. Thus a suggestion that M-
was myself, and that I was he, succeeded ; and in his reversed capacity
he continued a course of experiments upon myself, devising several
original and ingenious varieties to which I, for the sake of the game,

XLV.]

Some Experiments in Hypnotism.

283

acquiesced in subjecting myself. He also behaved with considerable
dignity and verve as King Edward VII., until I threw a match at
his head, a proceeding which appeared to conflict so strongly with
dramatic verisimilitude that he lapsed back into his ordinary hypnotic
condition, nor could I reinduce the impersonation. On the other
hand, statements that he was the Empress of China, and that he
was a nurse and I a baby, failed to carry any conviction, being
either received with a passive assent, or rejected with scorn. In his
waking state he explained that he was inly conscious that in point
of fact he was not the characters that he was bidden to assume,
and that if asked he would have said as much, but that he was
irresistibly impelled to act as though he were.

I have stated that M. is highly susceptible to post-hypnotic
suggestions. The execution of such suggestions is somewhat curious.
Since I am unable to affect the continuity of his memory, he is
aware, when awaked, of the fact that a suggestion is impending ;
he is also aware while executing it of the fact that it is a suggestion,
though it may be that if there is a considerable interval of time
before the suggestion is due the memory of it will fade from his
mind, to revive when the time has come. The following instance
is of some interest. I told him on one occasion that next day
I would ask him to walk with me in the garden, and that when
there I would offer him a book, and ask him to read me a passage
out of it, but that he would only find himself able to read every
alternate word. The following morning, when we went forth, he
had a copy of Punch in his hand. I asked him if it contained
anything good, and, if so, to read it to me. He forthwith, and
something to my disappointment, read me a set of verses without
a flaw. I then produced my own book, directed his attention to
a passage, and asked him to read it aloud. He started doing so,
reading, however, only every alternate word, and presently stopped,
saying he could not understand what it was all about.

I asked him if he was aware that he was executing a post-hypnotic
suggestion. He said that he had forgotten about it, but that he
now remembered it clearly. I then asked him to try whether, with
the full consciousness that he was the victim of a mere suggestion,
he would still be forced to submit to it. The result showed the
influence to be unaltered. He said that he was aware that there
was something in between the words which he read, but that they
conveyed no meaning to his mind ; so that while reading aloud he
failed to grasp the meaning of the passage; but that if he read it

284

Edward Greenwood.

[part

to himself he understood it without difficulty. As an instance of
the accuracy with which the suggestion had operated, it appeared
that if he selected a passage himself he was able to read it
correctly, whereas if I selected it, though it might be the same
passage, he could make nothing of it.

As a contribution to the question as to whether, during the
execution of a post-hypnotic suggestion a subject lapses back into
the hypnotic state, I may here mention that on my way into the
garden I bent over a rhododendron and declared that it smelt of
vanilla. He expressed surprise that it should do so, tested it him-
self, and agreed. On our way back, after the close of the reading
experiment, he again paused at this rhododendron to smell it, but
found it had lost its scent. He then immediately realized that its
first perception of it was due to a suggestion. But this sugge*
tibility did not extend to orders which were more obviously
suggestions, except during the actual execution of the post-hypnotic
command. Thus I found that, while he was actually engaged in
trying to read a selected passage, I could inhibit any movement
by a sudden direction to that effect, but that when he ceased
reading I was unable to continue the inhibition. If the posthypnotic
suggestion is to be executed shortly after it was given, so that the
memory of it does not escape him, the mode of execution is some-
thing as follows: I tell him that three minutes after waking he will
get up and sit on my kneee. Then I wake him.

" Oh, so I'm to sit on your knee, am I ? "

" Yes, do you feel as if you were going to ? "

"Not in the least; I never felt less inclined to do anything
in my life."

Then we talk of other things. Presently he says :
"Do you know, I do begin to feel as if I should like to sit on
your knee. But I won't."
Then a little later :

" I say, I really feel a most extraordinary wish to sit on your
knee. I know I sha'n't be happy till I do. You mustn't mind. I
really think I'd better." . . .

And he does.

I should here state that owing to M/s ready susceptibility I
began to fear I might acquire an influence which would be in-
convenient both to him and to me, and so enjoined that thenceforth,
whether he wished it or no, I should be unable to hypnotise him
unless he previously recited a formula asking me to do so, in a

XLV.]

Some Experiments in Hypnotism.

285

particular form of words. After several failures I eventually
succeeded in impressing this so strongly upon him that it became
absolutely effective, and the formula proved requisite before I could,
even with the utmost co-operation on his part, influence him in
the least. One night, however, after retiring to bed, I was
surprised by his entering the room with the request that I should
awaken him. I expressed astonishment, and asked whether he was
really asleep. He assured me that he was, and explained that
while we had been conversing in the drawing-room after dinner,
other persons being present, he had experimentally recited the
formula, sotto voce, and had immediately, unperceived by myself or
the others in the room, gone off into the hypnotic state, and could
not get out of it again. I protested that this was an extremely
unfair trick both on himself and on me, and to guard against its
recurrence I enjoined that in future a mere repetition of the
formula should not suffice, but that it must be formally written
down, signed, and handed to me. This has hitherto proved com-
pletely effective, and in the absence of the document no efforts
on the part of either of us, however much prolonged, have any
result whatever.

I will now describe what appears to me the most interesting feature
in M.'s development, viz. the variations that have taken place in his
demeanour in the hypnotic state. During the first two or three
hypnotizations, his secondary condition was very markedly different
from his normal state. His sight seemed dim, and his eyes wore a
vague and distant look. His demeanour was heavy, his movements
slow, and his manner of speech low, restrained, and quite devoid of
its usual vivacity. He exhibited extreme nervousness; the slightest
sound caused him to start, and on one occasion, at the sight of a beetle
(I was never able to determine whether this animal was real or the
creature of self-hallucination), fled across the room in a paroxysm of
terror, from which I had some ado to recall him to calmness. Towards
myself he exhibited much repugnance, disliking that I should touch or
even approach him. I appeared to him in a mist, and as wearing a
horrible aspect, with diabolic eyes ; nor could any suggestion restore
me to favour in his sight. Further, his range of vision was consider-
ably diminished. Whereas his normal reading distance is about
1£ ft., he found himself unable to read a book at a greater distance
than 6 ins.

After the third experiment many of these symptoms changed. He
completely lost his fear of myself, his general nervousness vanished,

286

Edward Greenwood.

[part

his condition was no longer comatose and languid, but resembled very
closely his normal state. His speech was indeed somewhat slower, his
manner more restrained than was usual in his normal state, but a
casual observer would scarcely have recognized anything abnormal.
One evening, some time after the establishment of this as his ordinary
hypnotic condition, he surprised me by suddenly behaving in quite i
different manner. He became extremely hilarious and absurd, jested
in an easy way, displayed a tendency for practical jokes upon myself
kicked my clothes about the room, and was generally obstreperous and
fantastic, both in his speech and behaviour. I met him in the same
spirit till in a moment, without warning, he reverted to his former
habit — quiet, speculative, and restrained. Later on, in the same
evening, a further relapse into his jocose vein took place. The complete
difference between the two conditions, the absolute contrast of the
whole manner of the man as presented in each respectively, the
alteration in his expression, conduct, and mode of speech, the sudden
and unexpected way in which the change took place, sometimes in the
middle of a sentence, involving frequently a break in his thought, and
a cessation and repudiation of what he had just been saying, brought
me tentatively to regard these variations as a kind of embryonic
specimen of multiple personality.

In course of time further variants developed, quite spontaneously,
each differing markedly from any other. These moods, if I may so
call them, do not attain to the dignity of the personalities in the
classic cases of L^onie or of Louis V., for example, and indeed M.
disclaims for them anything in the nature of distinct personalities.
He is conscious of complete continuity between them, a continuity
far more perfect than that between his waking and hypnotic con-
ditions. Their appearance is beyond his control, and independent
of my suggestion, though I have found I can produce one or other
of them at will. It is, he explains, as though he were a magic-
lantern, with many-coloured slides passing in sequence before his
eyes, so that he looks out upon the world, and thinks and feels
regarding it, through a constantly changing medium. For it is not
only in externalities that these moods vary from one another : they
carry with them each a different set of emotions, tastes, and a different
mental attitude. For reference, they may be christened as follows :

(A) the "nervous" mood, i.e. the one in which appeared during the
first three hypnotizations. (I may perhaps be wrong in classifying this
as a distinct mood. He has never since lapsed back into it, and I have
not attempted to reproduce it by suggestion.)

Digitized by

XLV.]

Some Experiments in Hypnotism.

287

(B) the " ordinary " or " quiet " mood, which during a considerable
portion of the series was the only one that appeared.

(D) the " gay " mood, almost identical with (C), except that there
appears no aggressive wish to do injury.

(E) the " depressed " mood, in which he expresses himself as utterly
and beyond bounds miserable, and ready for no reason to burst into
tears. The following are some instances of the complete change that
these varying moods involve : While in his normal state he is a man
of gentle nature, in his " malicious " mood he expresses a strong wish
to inflict pain, and frequently asks me to allow him to stab me in order
to give him the, satisfaction of seeing the blood flow. Indeed, I have
often detected him surreptitiously extracting a penknife from his
pocket, with a view to gratifying this peculiar and alarming inclination.
He confesses to a wish to vivisect, or, failing that, to strangle. I gave
him permission on one occasion to do his worst, and he made so
determined an attempt on me with a towel round my throat that I
was forced to bid him forego the remainder of the experiment. Again,
while in his normal waking state a person of well-bred and courteous
demeanour, and a religious and idealistic temperament, in his " gay "
mood he displays an astounding lack of the ordinary conventions or
proprieties, professes a complete contempt for either religion or
morality, and a disregard for any responsibility in his actions, becomes,
in his own phrase, a child of nature, non-moral, though not vicious.
If I offer a suggestion not in consonance with the particular mood he
may be in, I may insist upon its execution quite vainly so long as he
continues in that mood. If, however, I procure a change in the mood
itself — a change which it is beyond his power to resist — he is im-
mediately ready to fall in with the suggestion. Thus, if he is in his
" ordinary " or " quiet " mood, and I suggest something of which he
disapproves, no amount of insistence on my part will avail to get him
to perform it. I then say : " Very well, I will put you into your
' gay ' mood, and then you will not object." He may protest against
the change, but vainly. I say : " When I count 5 you will pass into
the * gay ' mood. 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 ! " Immediately a change passes
over his face; he generally rises from his chair, rollicks about the
room, and professes himself ready to execute even the most preposterous
suggestions of which he had scouted the very idea only the moment
before.

M.'s waking memory of what passes in his hypnotic state, while
always continuous, was, as I have elsewhere indicated, subject in the

288

Edward Greenwood.

[part

earlier experiments to occasional intermissions. Towards the close of
the series, however, the continuity became perfect, and he is therefore
able to pass in review, during his waking state, the various u moods "
in which he has undergone his hypnotic adventures. Though he mar
feel surprise, from his waking standpoint, at his having expressed such
and such a sentiment, or done such and such an action while in one of
these moods, his memory is perfect, not only of the sentiment or action
itself, but also of the emotions and points of view accompanying them.
We soon began to discuss, in his waking state, the probable limits of
his acquiescence to distasteful suggestions, as it began to seem likely
that, granting that they were given while he was in an appropriate
mood, there might be no limits at all. And at first we both came to
the conclusion that this was probably the case.

I obtained his permission to test this more systematically, and we
arranged to try the effect of certain suggestions, certain of which
were proposed by himself, and to which he agreed that in his
waking state he would feel the strongest objections. I found at
first that if I gave such a suggestion in his "ordinary" or "quiet"
mood he would flatly refuse to execute it, and be rather indignant
at my insistence. Nor could any power cause him to yield. If I
then put him into his "gay" mood, he at once expressed surprise
at his former objection and explained it on the ground that he had
been in his " quiet " mood, for the prejudices of which, he declared
there was no accounting, and for which, in his "gay" mood, h«
appears to entertain the same kind of contempt that a music-hall
manager would for the London County Council. Short of the obvious
limitations that must be imposed on experimentation of this kind
even the most repugnant suggestions have, by this device, gained
acceptance It is impossible, in practice, to prove how far this kind of
thing really will go, or to put to the test an actually criminal or
immoral action. Nor have I been sufficiently heroic to test whether,
in point of fact, M. would really vivisect me, if permitted, or stab me in
the jugular or strangle me, though 1 am inclined, from certain indications
of the fundamental change of instinct that takes place, to believe his
assurance that he would do it with the greatest delight.

Admitting the weakness of any evidence short of such experiment-
ation, I cannot but express my own belief that when M. assured me
that, no matter how repugnant an action might be to him in his
waking state, it would cease to be so if suggested, or permitted,
while he was in an appropriate mood, he was probably correct in
his statement. It is true that later experiments caused us both to

Digitized by Google

xlv.] Some Experiments in Hypnotism. 289

modify our conclusion as to the absolute irresistibility of these sug-
gestions, and on the last occasion on which any such were tried he
opposed to my most artful endeavours a completely successful
resistance. And this, notwithstanding the fact that the particular
suggestion was one to which on a former occasion I had easily
gained his acquiescence, and which, in his waking state, he had just
consented to my trying to repeat. I think, however, that this forti-
fication of his power of resistance may be traced to my frequent
references to the matter in his waking state, and to my repeated
requests that he should resolve to try and resist to the uttermost.

It is the first occasion in my own experience that I have observed
the phenomena presented in these so-called "moods" to which M. is.
subject, and I am not aware of a similar condition having previously
been described elsewhere. It is therefore impossible to argue from
this particular case to the general. It is accordingly to this particular
case that 1 must limit my conclusion, which is, repugnant and
unexpected as I confess it to be, that, in the hands of an unscrupulous
operator, there was at one period of the experiment possibly no limit
to the acquiescence that might, by artful procedure, have been induced
to suggestions which, in his normal state, would be highly distasteful
to the subject ; and that the moral prepossessions which are usually
considered to be ample safeguards against a misuse of the power of
suggestion would have been, in this case at all events, an insufficient
protection. And I am of opinion that even now it is by no means
improbable that suggestions which, though repugnant to him in his
waking state, are spontaneously consonant to him, say in his " mali-
cious" mood, — such, for example, as a suggestion to stab or to
strangle, — might not most blithe-heartedly be acted upon.

Digitized by

290

Walter Skeat

[part

II.

MALAY SPIRITUALISM.

By Walter Skeat.

[The following is part of a paper which appeared under the above
title in Folk-Lore, Vol. XIIL, No. 2, June, 1902, and is here reprinted
by the kind permission of the Council of the Folk-Lore Society. The
paper was read at the General Meeting of the Society for Psychical
Research on May 30th, 1902.— Editor.]

When I recently had the honour of being invited by the Council to
read a paper before this Society,1 I had nothing ready which seemed
suitable for the purpose. It appeared to me, however, that it would
be a useful piece of work to bring together in one paper the main facts
concerning the spiritualistic beliefs of the Peninsular Malays, with
special reference to motor automatisms of the type of the Divining-Rod,
where the motions of an inert object in contact with a human being
may be regarded as externalisations of subconscious knowledge. Out
of this idea the preseut paper has grown.2 I shall therefore now
endeavour in the first place to put the details of the Malay per-
formances before you as clearly as possible. I shall then proceed to
state the problem, in so far as it concerns ethnology, and shall only
refer incidentally to the few, and, I fear, somewhat negative results
which may be of general psychical interest. Speaking generally, most
forms of spiritualism known to us in Europe are most likely known in
some form or other to Malay magicians, even though they may not ail
have been yet recorded. Devil-dancing is practised, and apparitions
and what may be called Pelting Spirits (Poltergeister) are certainly
most strongly believed in. Houses are left uninhabited on account of
phenomena of the classes referred to, and I myself once lived for many

1 The Folk-Lore Society.

2 For many of the notes, and for much valuable assistance in the compiling of
this paper, I am indebted to Mr. N. W. Thomas.

XLV.]

Malay Spiritualism.

291

months in a Malay house which, according to the Malays, was unmis-
takably haunted.

Of sptat-writing and levitation, no purely Malay accounts are yet to
hand. It would be unsafe to assume the absence of the first till we
know for certain if there is any really automatic form of planchette
practised in China, beside the case described by Professor Giles as long
ago as 1879, in which a poem was composed for the writers. As to
the second, there are many references in Malay literature to the flying
performances of Malayan heroes, whilst to this day it is alleged in
Selangor that people possessed by the Pontianak 1 (one of the tremen-
dous birth-demons of Malay tradition), acquire supernatural powers,
enabling them to climb trees of immense height and to walk in
safety along branches which are no thicker than a man's thumb, a
manifest impossibility under normal conditions. A similar power is
also claimed for the young girls who perform what the Malays call
the Monkey-dance, in which, however, they are possessed by the
Monkey-spirit.

The burning of incense and recital of a charm called Pfruang enables
Malay magicians to walk upon water without sinking in it beyond the
ankles. A similar charm in the case of the Malay form of ordeal by
diving enables the innocent party to remain under water for an
incredible period, which, according to the Malays, sometimes extended
to "almost" three-quarters of an hour, in fact in some cases (it was
declared) he would remain under water until the spectators lost
patience and dragged him out, whereas the guilty party begins to
choke immediately. A magician from Perak informed me once that he
had used the power of causing a sandbank to rise at sea between his
own boat and that of his pursuers. I at once made him a sporting
offer of twenty dollars if he would give me an exhibition of it, but he
informed me that it could only be done when he was really in danger,
and not for " swagger." The same man, moreover, claimed to possess

1 In the Malay Peninsula the Pontianak (or Mati-anak) is usually distinguished
as the ghost of a child who has died at birth, the ghost of a woman who has died
in child-birth being called " langsuir," and credited with all the attributes which
elsewhere belong to the Pontianak. Cf. Col. J. Low on Siamese customs in
J. A. /., vol. i., p. 361, which I had not seen when I wrote to the above effect in
Malay Magic, pp. 318 and 327. There is no doubt that the two are often
confused, but the belief in the langsuir, as distinguished from the Pontianak, is
certainly the usual explanation in the Peninsula. [Cf. Kruijt in Med. Ned, Zend.,
xxxix., p. 17, and xlii., p. 433; also Riedel, 57, 58, 81, 184, 239, 267 (and in
several other passages), though in none of these is the langsuir once mentioned.
W. T.]

292

Walter Skeat.

[part

the power of clairvoyance, but failed in an easy test which he himself
proposed.

The first class of spiritualistic ceremonies, which happens to be the
one to which I specially wish to direct your attention to-night, consists
of a simple form of automatism, as represented by the movements of
inert objects. No form of table-turning is of course practised by the
Malays, who pass their lives for the most part in scattered communities,
either in the jungle or at sea, and who do not therefore make any
appreciable use of such luxuries as tables and chairs. Nevertheless a
fairly close parallel to our own table-turning exhibitions may be found
in the dance-ritual of inanimate objects which the Malay magicians
exhibit, though we do not as yet possess any clue as to the real purpose
of such performances.

A second class of automatisms, allied in form to these dances,
includes a large number of ways of divining by means of the
apparently intelligent movements of inanimate objects in contact with
the magician.

A third class, which requires to be distinguished to some extent
from automatic phenomena, consists mainly of ceremonies by whkh
certain demons, animals, or even inert objects are made to act upon
persons at a distance. This kind of ceremony corresponds to what is
usually known as a " sending."

The fourth and last class of ceremonies to which I shall refer includes
such rites as are intended to induce possession either for divinatory
purposes or for that of exorcism. These four classes will now be taken
in the order in which I have mentioned them.

I. In the first class of motor automatisms I place those ceremonies of
which the purpose does not lie on the surface, and can only be inferred
by the European observer.

The Palm-blossom Dance is a very curious exhibition, which I once
saw performed in the Langat district of Selangor. Two freshly-
gathered sprays of areca-blossom, each about four feet in length, were
deposited upon a new mat near a tray containing a censer and three
special kinds of sacrificial rice. No particular season was specified.
The magician (" Che Ganti " by name) commenced the performance by
playing a prelude on his violin, and a few minutes later Che Gantis
wife (an aged Selangor woman) took some of the sacrificial rice in her
hand and began to chaunt a weird sort of invocation, addressed to the
seven sister spirits, probably the souls of the palm. She was almost
immediately joined in the chaunt by a younger woman. The invoca-
tion consists of four separate sets of seven stanzas, each stanza con-

XXV.]

Malay Spiritualism.

293

taining four short lines, which rhyme alternately. The first set begins
as follows :

" Thus I brace up, I brace up the palm-blossom,

And summon the elder sister to descend by herself.
Thus I brace up, I brace up the palm-blossom,

And summon the second sister to descend with the first."

The same words are repeated mutatis mutandis until all seven sisters
have been summoned to descend, the witch then covers the two sprays
of palm-blossom with a Malay plaid skirt or wrapper and five cubits of
white cloth, folded double and fumigated. The chaunt now changes
abruptly into the second set of seven stanzas :

" Borrow a hammer, borrow an anvil to forge the neckbones
of this our sting-ray (i.e. the sheaf of blossom).
Borrow an orchard, borrow a courtyard,
To bring down upon earth the fairy sisters. "

Six stanzas follow, in which the names of six other parts of the
sting-ray, i.e. the head, wings, tail, gills, etc., are successively substi-
tuted. At this point rice is thrown over one of the two sprays, its
sheath is opened, and the contents fumigated. Then the old woman
takes the newly-fumigated spray between her hands, holding it upright
at the base with her hands just resting on the ground, and the third
set of stanzas commences with the words :

" Dig up, O dig up the wild ginger-plant,
Dig till you get a finger's breadth or two of it.
Seek for, O seek for a magnificent domain
Into which to bring down the fairy sisters."

The remaining six stanzas of this set are similar to the first, with
variations appropriate to each one of the six remaining spirits. During
the chaunting of this third set, the erect spray of Palm-blossom, held
between the witch's hands, commenced swaying, at first almost imper-
ceptibly, to the tune of the music, its motion becoming more and more
accentuated as the chaunt proceeded.

The last set of stanzas proceeded with the words :

" Bear on high the betel-rack, bear on high the betel-dish,
Bear them on high in the midst of the pleasure garden.
Come hither, my love, come hither, my life,
Come hither and seat yourself in the courtyard centre."

The last six stanzas vary only in the invitations addressed to the
spirits, which are requested to ascend the house-ladder and wash their
feet, to take their seat upon the mats that are spread for them, and to
enjoy to the full the good things (e.g. betel-leaf, etc.) which their

Digitized by Google

294

Walter Skeat.

[PAW

hosts have provided for their refreshment. The invitation concludes
with an appeal to the spirits not to be too rough, but to be mild and
gentle, and as its wailing notes die away, it is believed that the seven
spirits descend and "perch" like birds upon the palm-blossom. At
this point the fiddle stopped and tambourines were substituted, the
spray of blossom forthwith proceeding to jump about on its base, u
if it were indeed possessed, until it eventually dashed itself vioknthr
down upon the mat-covered floor of the dwelling.1

After one or two repetitions of this performance, with Che Gaatfs
wife as the medium, other persons present (myself amongst them) were
invited to try their luck with it, and did so with varying success, whidi
depended, I was told, upon the impressionability of their souls, as the
palm-blossom spray would not dance for any one whose soul was not
impressionable. I myself must unfortunately have been one of these
people, as I never experienced the slightest tremor, and the palm-
blossom remained motionless until I got tired of waiting, and moved it
myself, when my doing so was of course hailed as the manifest work of
the spirit

When the first blossom-sheaf had been destroyed by the rough treat-
ment which it had to undergo (as each time at the conclusion of the
dance it was dashed upon the ground), the second was duly fumigated
and introduced to the company, and finally the performance was
brought to a close by chaunting a set of stanzas in which the spirits
are requested to return to their own place. These latter commenced
as follows :

The remaining stanzas are precisely similar, with the exception of the
colours assigned to the bowl and the heavens, which are described
successively as black, green, blue, red, purple, and yellow. The two
sheaves were then carried out of the house and deposited on the
ground underneath a banana-tree. I was told that if this closing part
of the performance were not carried out with scrupulous care the
spirits would not leave the house, and its inmates would be strange in
their head for days, even if, indeed, none of them went mad.

The Dancing Fish-trap is a spiritualistic performance in which a fish-

1 If I remember rightly Che Ganti's wife retained her hold of the spray until
it had dashed itself upon the ground two or three times, when she dropped it
and let it lie.

<«

I slip the palm-blossom, I slip it,
I slip it into the white bowl,
Escort the fairies, escort them,
Escort them unto the white heaven.

»»

XLV.]

Malay Spiritualism.

296

trap (lukah) is employed instead of the spray of palm -blossom, and a
different invocation is used. The fish-trap, moreover, is dressed up
much in the same way as one of our own "scare-crows," so as to
present a rude sort of resemblance to the human figure. Its " dress "
consists of a woman's jacket and plaid skirt (sarong), both of which
should (if possible) have been worn previously. A stick is then run
through the upper part of the trap to take the arms of the jacket and
a cocoanut-shell (preferably a sterile one) is clapped on the top to serve
as the fish-trap's head. The trap, when fully dressed, is held a few
inches above the ground by two or three people, each of whom applies
both his hands to the bottom of the Fish-trap, in a manner similar to
that employed in our own table-turning performances, and the invoca-
tion is forthwith chaunted in the same manner and to the same accom-
paniment as that used in the palm-blossom performance. At the close
of the invocation the magician whispers, so to speak, into the fish-trap's
ear, bidding it not to disgrace him, but rise up and dance; and
presently the fish-trap begins to rock to and fro, and to leap about
in a manner which, of course, proves it to be possessed by the
spirits.

Of the Dancing-Spoon of the Malays we are told in Primitive Culture,
ii, 152 : "Mr. Darwin saw two Malay women on Keeling Island, who
held a wooden spoon, dressed in clothes like a doll ; this spoon had
been carried to the grave of a dead man, and becoming inspired at full
moon, in fact lunatic, it danced about convulsively, like a table or a
hat at a modern spirit seance." This is of course an automatism, not
a case of movement without contact.

II. In the next class I place those motor automatisms in which a
definite purpose, easily discernible by the uninitiated, is consciously
pursued. In this case also the objects are put in motion by the
unconscious muscular action of those in contact with them.

The Divining Lemon. — For divinatory purposes the Penang Malay
takes a " rough-coated " lemon, a hen's egg, a wax taper, four bananas,
four cigarettes, four rolled-up quids of betel-leaf, several handfuls of
sacrificial rice, one of the prickles of a thorn-back mudfish, a needle
with a torn eye (selected from a packet containing a score of needles,
out of which, however it must be the only one so damaged), and a
couple of small birches made of the leaf-ribs of palms — one with seven
twigs and the other with twelve. From among the foregoing articles,
with the exception of the lemon, the fish-prickle, and the needle, two
equal portions are made up, one portion, together with the birch of

296

Walter Skeat.

[part

seven twigs, being deposited under a tree outside the house. When
deposited, the egg must be cracked, and the cigarettes and the taper
be lighted. The taper is then taken up between the* outspread fingers
of the joined hands, and " waved " slowly towards the right, centre,
and left. It is then deposited on the ground, and the taper presently
commences to burn blue, this being regarded as an "acknowledgment*
on the part of the spirit. The fish-prickle and the needle are now thrust
horizontally through the lower part of the Idmon, at right angles to each
other, and left so that their four ends are slightly projecting. A
silken cord of seven different-coloured strands is then slipped round
these ends, and serves as a means of suspending the* lemon over the
brazier of incense, the upper end of the cord being held in the left hand
and the birch in the right. Everything being prepared, the magician,
after the customary scattering of rice and fumigation of the birch and
the lemon, recites the appropriate charm, and presently commences to
put questions to the lemon, which the spirit is now1 supposed to have
entered, rebuking and threatening it with the birch whenever it fails
to answer diroctly and to the point. The spirit's conversational
powers were, however, extremely limited, being confined to two signs
expressing " Yes " and " No." The affirmative was indicated by a
pendulum-like swing of the lemon, which rocked to and fro with more
or less vehemence according to the emphasis with which the reply was
supposed to be delivered. The negative, on the other hand, was
indicated by a complete cessation of motion on the part of the lemon.
When the lemon is required to discover the name of a thief, the names
of all those who are at all likely to have committed the theft are
written on scraps of paper and arranged in a circle round the brazier,
when the lemon will at once swing in the direction of the name of the
guilty party. The most propitious night for the performance of this
ceremony is believed to be a Tuesday.

The Cup and Ring Ordeal. — Another and perhaps a commoner form
of the foregoing ordeal is described by Maxwell, as follows : "Suppos-
ing that a theft has taken place in a house, all the inmates are
assembled, and tfieir names are written on the edge of a white cup, on
which some sentences of the Koran are also inscribed. A ring is then
suspended by a maiden's hair and held right over the middle of the
cup. It is then swung round gently, and the name which it first
strikes is the name of the thief."

In a slightly different form of the divination, the instrument is a
bowl-, which is filled with water and covered over with a white cloth,
on which the scraps of paper with the names are successively deposited.

Digitized by

XLV.]

Malay Spiritualism.

297

The bowl is supported by two men on their knuckles, and a passage
from the Koran is read. When the scrap of paper containing the
name of the thief is laid on the cloth covering, the bowl twists itself
off the men's knuckles, and falls to the ground with a crash.

ThA Sieve Ordeal. — In some cased a sieve (nyiru) is similarly used.
Mystic sentences are written upon it with turmeric, and when all the
household is assembled a man grasps the sieve by the edge and holds
it out horizontally. Presently it is seen to commence oscillating up
and down, and pulls away from the man who is holding it, the latter
following its lead until it reaches and touches the thief.

The Divining-rod. — The last object of this class is the Malay divining-
rod, which is similarly gifted with the power of making supernatural
movements. This is a rod or birch of rotan sega (the best marketable
variety of cane), which may consist either of a single stem, or of any
odd number of stems up to nine. The handle of the rod or rods is
bound with a hank of " Javanese " yarn, which may or may not be
stained yellow. The sorcerer who wishes to use it grasps the butt-end
of the rod in his right fist, and after burning incense and scattering
sacrificial rice, repeats the appropriate charm, which commences with
a summons to the spirit to descend from the mountains and enter into
his embodiment. If the invocation is properly performed, the spirit
descends, and entering the sorcerer's head by way of the fontanel,
proceeds down his arm and into the rod itself. The result is that the
tip of the rod commences to rotate with rapidly increasing velocity,
until the sorcerer loses consciousness, in which case the rod will point
in the direction of any sort of lost or hidden treasure, which it may be
the object of the operators to discover. Even underground water
could, I was assured, be thus discovered.

III. We now come to the third class — that of demons, animals,
and even inert objects, which are made to act on persons at a distance
— a class which as I have already said includes sendings of every
description.1

Sendings. — One form of sending is described as follows : ik When
one individual has animosity against another, he constructs a dagger
upon magic principles, and recites a prayer over it. Then, if his
adversary lives at a distance, the sorcerer, seizing the dagger by the

1 [The magician is regarded (sometimes at any rate) as sending his magic bone
or stone in propria persona into the body of his enemy. Cf. Nys, Chez les
Abarambos, p. 117. N.W.T.] Among the Malays, however, these ceremonies
are called not sendings but pointings, and I am not at all sure how far this view
applies.

298

Walter Skeat.

[part

handle, stabs with the point in the direction of his enemy, whereupon
the latter immediately falls sick. Blood gathers on the point of the
dagger, and this the man sucks1 exclaiming: 'Now I am satisfied,1
whilst his adversary becomes speechless and expires."

Another form of Tujv, in which the bow appears to have been
employed as the instrument, was related to me by a Malay magician
as follows : If you wish to abduct another person's soul, you must go
out of the house either at daybreak or " when the newly-risen moon
looks red," and standing with the big toe of the right foot resting upon
the big toe of the left, make a trumpet by putting your right hand
before your mouth, and recite through it the charm, which runs as
follows :

4'0mf I loose my shaft, I loose it, and the moon clouds over,
I loose it and the sun is extinguished,
I loose it and the stars born dim.
Yet I shoot not at sun, moon, or stars,

But at the heart-strings of a child of the human race, so-and-so.

Cluck, cluck ! soul of so-and-so.

Come and walk with me,

Come and sit with me,

Come and sleep, and share my pillow."

The text of this charm would, I think, be conclusive proof, even if
there were no other, that the form of magic called arrow-sending, or
rather arrow-pointing, was formerly in vogue among Malay magicians.

The next three sendings* are taken from an old but valuable
authority on the Peninsula named Begbie. One form of sending it is
called the Tuju Jantang, or the " heart-sending " ; jankmg being the
Malay name both for the human heart and also for the cordiform top
of the newly-opened bunch of bananas. The person who employs this
form of witchcraft has to search for one of these cordiform tope and
perform a magic rite under it. He next has to tie the banana-top, and
having recited a prayer over it, burns the point which communicates
with the heart of his adversary, inflicting excruciating agony. When
he is tired of tormenting him he cuts the jantong, and the man's heart
simultaneously drops from its proper situation, blood issuing from the
mouth of the expiring sufferer.

In the remaining instances, the sendings apparently consisted of
insects.2 The Tuju Jindang is a kind of sending in which the sorcerer

1 [Cf. Lts Missions Catholiques, 1803, p. 345. N.W.T.]

9 [Cf. Martius, Zur, Eth. Brasiliens, p. 78 ; Les Missions Catholiques, J 889, p.
377 ; Torrend, South African Bantu Languages, p. 292, etc. N.W.T.]

XLV.]

Malay Spiritualism.

299

employs an evil spirit in form of a caterpillar, which is carefully reared
in a new vessel and fed upon roasted padi. It partakes of the appear-
ance of the silkworm. Its keeper directs it to attack the enemy,
saying : " Go and devour the heart and entrails of so-and-so," or words
to that effect, whereupon it departs and flies against the ill-fated
individual, entering generally either at the back of the hand or between
the shoulders. At the moment of contact a sensation is produced as if
a bird had flown against one's body, but it is invisible, and the only
sign of its presence is the livid hue of the spot where it has entered.
On entering, it forthwith performs its mission, inflicting intolerable
torment. The body gradually becomes blue, and the victim expires.

One of the spirits most dreaded by the Malays is the Polong, whose
shape is described as resembling nothing in the animal world, but
-whose head is formed very much like the handle of a kris ; the eyes
being situated at either end of the cross-guard, and the upper part
of the blade representing the neck, from the extremity of which branch
out two spinous leg-like processes, running nearly parallel with its
spiral filiform body, widening out at the insertion, and gradually
approximating at the extremities; at least such is the form of the
Polong which a Malay physician and dealer in the black art will
rudely sketch if requested to do so. It is difficult to believe, although
we are so assured, that this demon with whose figure the Malays
are so well acquainted, is nevertheless always invisible. It is death by
the Malayan code to keep one, but it is nevertheless asserted that
several females are in the habit of doing so, as the possession of a
Polong imparts exquisite beauty to its owner, even though she be
naturally ugly. The men seldom keep one of these spirits unless
they have some revenge to gratify, though occasionally they keep them
for hire by others. The Polong is kept in a small earthen bottle, whose
neck is sufficiently wide to permit the introduction of a finger. As it
feeds upon human blood, its keeper cuts his finger once or twice a week,
either on Friday or Monday night, and inserts it in the bottle for the
Polong to suck. Should this be neglected the demon issues from his
confinement and sucks the whole body until it becomes black and blue.
Directly any one is attacked by a Polong, he either screams out, and
falls down in a swoon, or becomes deathlike and speechless. Some-
times possession is shown by incoherent raving, and in other cases by
acts of violence on the bystanders. Occasionally, even death itself
ensues. The Polong is under strict management, being obliged to
inflict the punishment in that kind and degree which his master
directs. The Malays say that this form of possession (like that of

300

Walter Skeat.

[part

werwolfism1) is infectious, at least in some cases, as people who have
been so incautious as to ask the sufferer the simple question, " What
is the matter ? Have you got a PoUmg ? " are instantly affected in a
similar manner. Mr. Thompson (of Singapore) saw a man who posi-
tively assured him that he had seen no less than twenty individuals
thus seized at the same time.

The soothsayer or physician is called in to the patient in order to
exorcise the spirit. He draws a representation of it in a white basin,
and pouring water on to it, desires the patient to drink the same. He
then holds the ends of the possessed person's thumbs, in order to
prevent the escape of the Polong (that being the door by which it makes
its exits and entrances), and questions it as to its motives for tormenting
the individual. Having received its replies through the mouth of the
possessed, he proceeds to search all over the body for the lurking place
of the spirit, which, notwithstanding its invisibility, is supposed to be
perfectly tangible, and to be lodged between the skin and the flesh.3
As soon as the magician has discovered the spot in which the PoUmg
is concealed, he exacts an oath of it to the effect that its previous
replies were true, and that it will never re-enter the body of the
person from whom it is about to be expelled. The sorcerer sometimes,
indeed, exerts so great a power over the Polong, as to compel it to enter
into and destroy its own master.

According to Malay accounts, the proper way to secure a PoUmg is
to deposit the blood of a murdered man in a small bottle or flask, and
recite sundry conjurations over it for a period of seven or fourteen days,
when a noise will be heard in the bottle resembling the chirping of
young birds. The operator then cuts his finger and inserts it into the
bottle, when the Polong sucks it. This is repeated daily, and the
person who thus supports the Polong is called its father, if a man, or its
mother, if she happens to be a woman.3

The Polong is, I was assured, invariably, preceded by its pet or
plaything, the Pelesit* which appears to be usually identified with a
species of house-cricket, of which I was once shown a specimen by a
Malay in a small glass bottle or phial. Whenever the PoUmg is
commissioned by its adopted parents to attack a new victim, it sends

1 [Cf. Tijdskrift, xli., 458. N.W.T.]

3 [Something analogous appears to be the Japanese belief in possession by foxes,
which enter the body under the finger-nails. N.W.T.]

* Another Malay superstition is that the blood of murdered men turns into
fireflies ; of. Malay Magic, 329.

4 [Cf. Journal Indian Archipelago, 307 ; J. A. I., xxiv., 288. N.W.T.)

jCLV.] Malay Spiritualism. 301

the Pelesit on before it, and as soon as the latter, flying along in a
headlong fashion, usually tail foremost, enters its victim's body and
begins to chirrup, the Polong follows.

The Pelesit appears to be occasionally kept either as a substitute
for, or as actually identical with, the Polong, and I was told that it was,
like the Polong, occasionally caught and kept in a bottle, and fed
either with parched rice or with rice stained yellow with turmeric, or
with blood drawn from the tip of the fourth finger, and that when its
owner desired to get rid of it, it was buried in the ground. One of
the most widely recognised ways of securing a Pelesit, which is regarded
in some parts of the Peninsula as a valuable species of property,
consists in exhuming the body of a child and carrying it at full moon to
an ant-hill, where it is reanimated and presently lolls out its tongue ;
when this happens the tongue must be bitten off and buried in a place
where three roads meet, when it will eventually develop into a Pelesit.1
The Polong is also sometimes identified or confused with a familiar
spirit called Bajang in Kedah, which appears, however, to have
originally been regarded as an entirely distinct conception, since its
usual embodiment is stated to have been a polecat or rather civet cat.

We have, then, in the list of Malay familiar spirits, the Polong (or
Bajang) and its plaything or messenger the Pelesit, the latter of which
occasionally appears to be actually regarded in some cases as the Polong's
embodiment, although it is more usually considered as distinct from the
Polong. During the Cambridge Expedition of 1899 we came more than
once on the track of these peculiar demons. At a village near
Trengganu I succeeded, by some strategy, in obtaining a snapshot of a
woman who kept a familiar spirit, but most probably she guessed that
something was up, for next morning my Malay friend who had helped
to arrange the matter came and told me she had just been to see him,
and had complained that she had dreamed that a great white
magician from over the sea had stolen away her soul. I sent her a
present of a little gold dust which I had recently purchased, but even
then she was only pacified with difficulty, as she complained I had not
sent her quite enough of it.

It is interesting to note the symptoms displayed by the supposed
victims of the demons I have just been describing. In various Malay
accounts we are told that a person possessed by a Polong, whether a
virgin or a married woman, either falls into a death-like swoon, or cries
out and loses consciousness of what he (or she) is doing, and tears and

1 [Cf. Crooke, Introduction, p. 360. For magic properties of tongue, cf. Report
Bur. Eth., 1881-2, p. Ill ff. N.W.T.]

Digitized by Google

302

Walter Skeat.

[part

throws off his or her clothing, biting and striking bystanders, and bKnd
and deaf to everything. A certain sign that one of these fits is cooing
on is for die sick person to rave about cats. When the Polimg has bees
exorcised, the sick person at once recovers consciousness, but is left
weak and feeble ; but if the means adopted for exorcising it arc un-
successful, the person who is attacked yells and shrieks in anger, and
after a day or two dies. After death blood comes bubbling forth from
the mouth, and the whole body is blue with bruises.

At a place on the east coast of die Malay Peninsula I came across &
different belief, viz., that in a particular species of vampire. At Patani
one of the members of the expedition (Mr. Gwynne-Vaughan) informed
me that he was walking down the main street of the town when he was
stopped and asked if he wished to see some skulls. He had the pre-
sence of mind to reply in die affirmative, and was taken outside Ute
town and there shown two skulls which had been feeding, it «aa
alleged, upon the soul of a Malay woman. I myself then went to see
them, and bought the two skulls for a couple of dollars, and brought
them home.

Those who are familiar with T. Lockwood Kipling's fine work os
Man and Beast in India will doubtless remember the beautiful specimens
which he gives of the caligraphic pictures of which oriental penmen are
so fond. Pictures of this kind are occasionally employed by Makj
magicians for various objects, and form one of the methods adopted for
guarding a house against the entry of the familiar spirits of which 1
have been speaking They consist, as in India, of the names of God
and of various prophets, and prayers cleverly woven into a design,
which is believed to furnish a complete protection against the spirits
referred to.

IV. Of the ceremonies of the fourth class, viz. Possession and Devil-
dancing, I have seen, perhaps, altogether about half a dozen perform
ances, though I need scarcely remark that it is a most difficult task
for a European to obtain permission to attend such ceremonies at all,
and it can only be done by possessing a strong friend (so to speak)
at court

At these performances the magician and a large number of his friends
and relations being assembled in the sick man's house, the magician
seats himself on the ground facing an attendant who chaunts the invo-
cation, accompanying himself upon the Malay three-stringed vioL
After much burning of benzoin and scattering of sacrificial rice the
spirit descends, entering the magician's body through the fontanel.
The magician is at once seized with convulsive twitchings which seem

xlv.] Malay Spiritualism. 303

to spread all over his body, and these are accompanied by a rapid
rotatory motion of the head, which he makes revolve from right to left
at a tremendous pace,1 shaking at the same time his shoulders and
thighs, and getting more and more violent until the whole body is
quaking like a jelly, thus producing an almost painfully vivid imitation
of an epileptic fit. Soon, however, he falls down in a state of what is
doubtless real exhaustion, and after an interval rises again and com-
mences to dance. The entire process is repeated several times ; and a
quiet interval then follows, during which the magician, sitting on the
ground, replies in a high, squeaky, unnatural voice to any questions
that may be put to him, not merely as regards the welfare of his
patient, but even as regards private and personal matters, which are of
interest only to the patient's friends and relations. In the course of
this catechism the magician expounds the cause and nature of the sick
man '8 illness, as well as the remedies which should be adopted for his
recovery.

Among the oracles thus delivered at a performance attended by Mr.
F. F. Laidlaw and myself in Kelantan, there was one which is perhaps
well worth recording. We had arranged next day to attend a Malay
bull-fight, to which we had been invited by His Highness the Raja
Muda. These bull-fights are not fought on the unequal lines of the
spectacles called by that name in civilised Europe, but consist of a fight
on equal terms between two powerful and carefully trained bulls, which
seldom do each other or any one else much injury, and which as exhibi-
tions of strength are exciting to watch. During the catechising of the
magician to which I have alluded, he was asked to give what I believe
is called the "straight tip" as to the probable winner of next day's
contest, and gave as his selection a bull named Awang Ranggong. On
the following afternoon Mr. Laidlaw and I were sitting on the dais
next to His Highness, and when the bulls were brought on the field
His Highness asked me which bull I thought looked most likely to win.
Remembering the sorcerer's tip, I replied " Awang Ranggong," though
I did not know one bull from the other, and in the result " Awang
Ranggong " certainly won hands down, breaking his opponent's horn in
a few rounds and driving him off the field in most ignominious fashion.
The sorcerer's reputation as a good " judge of cattle " naturally went
up, though I must confess that it would take a great deal more proof
than was actually forthcoming to make me believe that there could
have been anything supernormal about the sorcerer's tip. The sorcerer
appeared to remember what he had said when we talked with him
J[Cf. Wetterstrand, Hypnotism, p. 33. N.W.T.]

Digitized by Google

304

Walter Skeat

[part

afterwards, and I am inclined to look upon the performance as a very
clever piece of acting, the voluntary or "conscious " element being often
probably far greater than is imagined.

[In the remainder of the paper Mr. Skeat discusses the question of
the interpretation of the ceremonies, the purposes which they are sup-
posed to subserve, and the indications they afford as to the beliefs and
habits of thought of the Malays. This part is here omitted, as bearing
less directly on the subject of psychical research. — Editor.]

Digitized by

xlv.] The Poltergeist, Historically Considered. 305

III.

THE POLTERGEIST, HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED.
By Andrew Lang.

To the Proceedings S.P.R. (Part xxx. 1897, Vol. XII. pp. 45-115) Mr.
Podmore contributed an article on "Poltergeists." After analysing
eleven then recent cases, he found common trickery detected in four,
and confessed in three instances, and he inferred that trickery was the-
"true and sufficient explanation," probably in the whole set. In much
the most curious example (1) that of Worksop, in 1883, the witnesses.
w«re " imperfectly educated, and did not give their testimony till some
weeks after the event." In a little discussion with Mr. Podmore, I
pointed out that some witnesses, including a policeman of sceptical
character, gave evidence at the time of the events, and I published that
testimony extracted from the local newspaper of the date.1 The interval
of some weeks before the persons were re-examined? had produced no
additional marvels. I am rather inclined to doubt, as will later be
shown, whether memory, after a lapse of time, is always so mythopoeic,
so apt to exaggerate, as Mr. Podmore believes : and we know that*
among the educated, memory is often inclined to minimize extraordinary
occurrences. A case in point is that of Lord Fortescue, who, as a very
old man, about 1850, denied that he had heard] of the wicked Lord
Lyttelton's ghost story, though he was in the house when Lord
Lyttelton died. Yet Lady Mary Coke, in her journal (privately
printed by the Earl of Home) for the date, tells the tale on the
authority of Lord (then Mr.) Fortescue. Lord Chesterfield said that,
if a man indubitably rose from the dead, in three days the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury would disbelieve it. Probably most of ua
know that, if anything very much out of the usual has come into
our experience, we gradually distrust our own impressions, and
reason the matter away. But the opposite process is doubtless the
more common, especially among the imaginative. By dint of excluding

1 In The Making of Religion, pp. 353-358.

306

Andrew Lang.

[part

evidence to the occurrence of curious phenomena in the alleged
absence of a person later detected in fraud ; and by insisting on trickery
as a vera causa, which it is, and by allowing more than I can easily do
for " collective hallucinations " (of which Sir Oliver Lodge is sceptical),
among the observers, Mr. Podmore succeeded in holding that the eleven
cases might be normally explained. To myself the uniformity of hallu-
cination, in many places and ages, as to the peculiar and non-natural
flight of objects, appeared a thing difficult of belief. Therefore, whfls
admitting the force of the case for trickery in all such instances, — oar
first, most natural, and most probable explanation, — I do not fed
absolutely convinced that it is the only explanation. But I have no
other theory to propound, and only wish to keep a door open for some
other undiscovered cause.

In March and June, 1899, Mr. Podmore returned to the theme, in
the Journal of the Society. (Vol. IX. p. 37 and p. 91 ).1

Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace had suggested the examination of seven]
historical cases of unexplained disturbances, historically recorded.
These can never be satisfactorily analysed. We cannot cross^xanune
witnesses : we cannot even examine the scenes of the events, in man?
cases. Moreover few of Mr. Wallace's instances were such as I should
have selected. He omitted the case of Mrs. Rickett's house, — Hintoo,
near Arlesford, — attested by that lady, and observed by Lord St. Vincent
The house was pulled down, and it would be unfair to mention some
modern facts which may, perhaps, be germane to the matter. Mr.
Wallace also omitted the Wellington Mill case, to which, therefore, Mr.
Podmore did not refer. The Ted worth, Cideville (1851), and Epworta
•cases remain, and, if only as folk-lore and history, are deserving of
some comments. An early, sceptical, and acute psychical researcher,
the Rev. Joseph Glanvil, F.R.S., wrote on the Ted worth case, which
be had investigated. We must regret that Mr. Glanvil was so un-
methodical that his observations are of slight value. I quote Mr.
Podmore's criticisms of the Tedworth affair. (Journal S.P.R VoL DL

The Drummer of Tedworth, as told by Glanvil. The disturbances
Ibegan " about the middle of April," 1661 (Glanvil only gives two exact
dates in the whole narrativeX and continued for about two years.
Olanvil's account of it, as we learn from the preface to the fourth (posthu-
mous) edition of Sadducismus Triumphatusy was first published in 1668.

1 Mr. Podmore'a criticisms have since been reprinted, with slight modifications,
in his Modern Spiritualism : A History and a Crilicwn, VoL i. pp. 2&*43

■p. 39.)

XLV.]

The Poltergeist, Historically Considered,

307

Glanvil himself paid one visit to the house "about this time " — the last date
given, on the previous page, being January 10th, 1662. GlanviPs account of
all he saw and heard is, in brief, as follows : — On hearing from a maid-
servant that " it was come," he, with Mr. Mompesson and another, went up to
a bedroom ; "there were two little modest Girls in the Bed, between seven
and eleven Years old, as I guest." Glanvil heard a scratching in the bed " as
load as one with long Nails could make upon a Bolster." This lasted for half-
an-hour and more, and Glanvil could not discover the cause ; it was succeeded
by a panting, like a dog, accompanied by movements in the bedding ; also
the windows shook ; also Glanvil saw a movement in a " Linnen Bag " that
hung against another bed, but was not apparently sufficiently sure of the
accuracy of his observation to mention this incident in the first (1668)
edition. Further, Glanvil was aroused by an untimely knocking next
morning ; and his horse fell ill oo the way home, and died 2 or 3 days later.
This is the only detailed account which we have at first hand ; it is written
5 or 6 years after the events, and apparently not from full notes, as
Glanvil is unable to give the exact dates.

The rest of the account is founded on the real relation of Mr. Mompesson,
confirmed by other witnesses, " and partly from his own letters." There are
also two letters of Mompesson's, dated respectively 1672 and 1674. But he
gives no detailed confirmation of GlanviPs account ; indeed, when the second
letter was written he expressly says that he liad lent GlanviPs book " for the
use of the Lord Hoi lis," the previous year, and did not know what the account
contained. But even if we assume that Glanvil had accurately put down 5
or 6 years later all that he had heard from Mompesson, it does not amount
to much ; for it does not appear that Mompesson himself witnessed any of
the more marvellous incidents — the drops of blood, the chairs moving by
themselves, " the great Body with two red and glaring eyes," and all the rest
of it. These things were witnessed by neighbours, by men-servants, or by
an undistributed " they." So that GlanviPs account of them may be third
hand or tenth hand.

Now the first known edition of GlanviPs Considerations about Witch-
craft is of 1666. Most of the impression was burned in the Great Fire
of London, and I have not access to a copy of that date. I give below
GlanviPs dates from his edition of 1668.1

1 "The Daemon of Tedworth," appended to Considerations about Witchcraft,
ed. of 1668.
Dates:

March 1661. Mr. John Mompesson of Tedworth hears the Drum at Ludgarshal;
and takes the Drum away from Drummer whom he leaves in the constable's
hands.

April following. Drum sent to Mompesson's house, he going to London.
Novembers, 1662. "It" [the Drum] "kept a mighty noise." Boards in the
children's rooms move into man servant's hands at his desire.

308

Andrew Lang.

[part

In this instance no attempt is made by Mr. Podmore to explain the
events by fraud : the evidence is merely disabled as late, and, perhaps,
"at third or tenth hand." Indeed the evidence is in a confused
way. The dates are all wrong. Glanvil places the occurrences be-
tween April 1661 and January 1663. This is erroneous. The dates
ought to be March 1662 — April 1663. Though it is not my earliest
document, I cite, from the Mercurius Publicus of April 1663, the
following sworn deposition of Mr. Mompesson.

The Information of Mr. John Mompesson of Tedworth in the County of
Wilts : taken this day 15th of April 1663, upon oath : against Willitm
Drury :

Who saith that at the beginning of March last [1662] was Twelvemonth,
he being at Ludgurshal in this County, at the Bailiff's house, and hearing a
Drum beat, enquired what Drum it was. The Bailiff informed him that be
was a stranger going for Portsmouth, having a Pass under the hands and
seals of two of his Majeste's Justices of Peace for the County of Wilts for
his passing to Portsmouth, and to be allowed and relieved in his journey ;
and that he had been requiring money of them, and they were collecting
money for him.

He this Informant saith, that suspecting him to be a Cheat, he desired the
Officer of the Town to send for him, which accordingly he did, and examining
him how he darM go up and down in that way beating his Drum, and
requiring money ; he, this Informant, saith Drury answered I have good
Authority ; and produced a pretended Pass under the hands and seals a*
aforesaid, Drury positively affirming it was their hands and seals. He this
Informant saith, that knowing it to be counterfeit, he charged him with it,
and was sending him before a J ustice of Peace : and then Drury begg'd, and
confess^ he made it : and upon his begging he let that pass. But he this
Informant further saith he took away his Drum, which Drury was very
unwilling to part with.

He this Informant saith, he left the Drum for some time after at

December, later end, 1662. Dru minings less frequent, but "ginglings as of money*

begin. (As at Epworth, in 1717. A. L.)
January beginning, 1662 [1663]. Singing in the chimney and lights seen in the

house.

Saturday, Jan. 10, 1662 [1663]. Dram beat on outside of house. Next night
Smith in village hears sound in the room as of horse-shoeing, etc

"About this time " Glanvil's cariosity took him to the house. He gives his
account of his visit.

[The dates are also given as above in the posthumous editions of Saddwcismm*

Triumphatus, of 1681 and later.]

From The "Mercurius Publicus."
No. 16. April 166S.

xlv.] The Poltergeist, Historically Considered. 309

Ludgurshal ; and that immediately after he had sent for the Drum to his
house, a Drum began to beat in the night, Roundheads and Cuckolds go dig,
go dig (which the said Drury did usually beat, and seldome any other note.)
This beating of a Drum increast more and more, from room to room : at last
he this Informant saith, he burnt the Drum that he had taken from Drury ;
and then the beating of a Drum, and some time knocking, several great noises,
scratching, troubling the Beds : sometimes the noise so violent, that it might be
heard a mile ; and continues to this day (April 15, 1663), and more than
formerly. And if they call to it, as several persons have, saying, Devil,
Knocker or Drummer, come tell us if the man from whom the Drum was
taken be the cause of this, give three knocks, and no more ; and immediately
three loud knocks were given, and no more. After that, another time,
Come tell us if the man from whom the Drum was taken be the cause of
all this, by giving five knocks, and away ; and presently five very loud
knocks were given, and away, and no more heard at that time.

Drurtfs Examination as to this coufesseth his being at Ludgurshal about
the time named, and his beating Drum there ; his false Pass, and that Mr.
Mompesson took away from him his Drum ; but denies that he hath any way
practised witchcraft, or that he hath been any way the cause of that trouble.

For the Escape made by him, and the Charge given against him by Mr,
Mompesson of witchcraft, he was sent to the County-goal at Sarum, there to
remain till the next Assizes. It may be observed that this Drury was about
four or five months since committed to Glocester-goal for felony ; and Mr.
Mompesson being informed he had several times in the gaol exprest himself
pleased at the report of the troubles in his house, saying, although the Drum
be burnt the Devil is not dead: and that he had better let me and my Drum
alone : two or three days after the late Assizes holden there, resolved to go
down to Glocester, forty miles from his house, to inform himself what was
become of Drury.

The night before he took his journey, a Drum beat in his stable, where it
had not been heard to beat before : and the morrow morning his Gelding
being brought forth of the stable, was fain very lame ; but however, he went
for Glocester, and there was informed, as before related, that he (Drury)
was sent away for Virginia.

Mr. Mompesson, beiug upon his return back from Glocester, in his way,
on Munday night last, lodged at a place called D rough ton in this County,
within two miles of Mscut. (?) On Thursday morning he was informed that the
said Will. Drury came to his house at Mscut, (?) the Munday night, with a
Drum at his back, and had beat it that night. Upon which Mr. Mompesson
procured a warrant to search for, and apprehend him ; which the same day
was accordingly done, and the said Drury sent to goal.

It in supposed that this Drury, with the other prisoners, have made this
escape by mur the ring the Bargemen.

From this account it would appear that the quarrel between Mr.
Mompesson and Drury, the drummer, began in March, 1662. The

Digitized by Google

310

Andrew Lang.

[part

noises and disturbances commenced in April. Dmry was imprisoned
on an independent charge of felony at Gloucester about December
1662 : was found guilty and sentenced to transportation ; escaped,
and began to annoy Mr. Mompesson, who next accused him of witch-
craft on April 15, 1663, at Salisbury. The ground of action was
the alleged use by Drury, when in gaol at Gloucester, of expressions
connecting him with the unexplained disturbances. The Grand Jury
found a true bill, but Drury was acquitted on trial for lack of
evidence to connect him with the aflair. Mr. Mompesson, two or
three neighbouring gentlemen, and the parson of the parish, gave
evidence, at Salisbury, to the phenomena. Unluckily, we have only
Mr. Mompesson's deposition: I have failed to discover the full
records of the trial in MS. In the printed deposition, Mr. Mom-
pesson does not say what he himself heard and saw; he merely
complains of " knocking, great noises, scratching, troubting the beds,"
and so forth. There can be no moral doubt, perhaps, that Mr.
Mompesson and his witnesses attested their personal experiences of
these familiar phenomena. But their evidence is lost or inaccessible.
That GlanviPs tales about the disturbances, if not printed till 1666-
1668, were current as early as 1662, and were not invented or even
exaggerated between 1663 and 1666-1668, I can readily prove.

The earliest contemporary record known to me is a ballad 1 of the
year 1662, in which the disturbance at Ted worth began. This
extremely inartificial poem was hunted out by Miss Elsie Alleyne
at the Bodleian Library. It is earlier, if the printed date, 1662,
be correct, than the sworn deposition of Mr. Mompesson, of April 15,
1663. The ballad gives details which are not in Mr. Mompesson's
printed statement, but are chronicled by Glanvil at least as early
as 1668; for example, the story of the bed staff which spontaneously
" went for " the clergyman while he was praying.

A true solution of the strange and invisible beating of a Drum, at the house
of John Mompesson, Esq., at Ted worth, in the county of Wiltshire, being
about 8 of the clock at night and continuing till 4 in the morning, several
days one after another, to the great admiration of mauy persons of Honour,
Gentlemen of quality, and many hundreds who had gone from several parts
to hear this miraculous wonder, since the first tune it began to beat " Round-
beads and Cuckolds, come dig, come dig." Also the burning of a drum that

1 A Wonder of Wonders. Broadside Ballad. Gilbertson, London, 1662. Wood
401 (193). Bodleian Library.

A wonder of wonders, being,

XLV.]

The Poltergeist, Historically Considered.

311

was taken from a drummer. Likewise the manner how the stools and chairs
danced about the rooms. The drummer is sent to Glocester goal. Like-
wise a great conflict betwixt evil spirits and Antony, a lusty country fellow.

To the tune of Bragandary.

" All you that fear the God on high
amend your lives and repent,
Those latter dayes show Dooms-days nigh.
Such wonders strange are lent,
of a strange wonder that you hear
at Ted comb within fair Wiltshire,
0 news, notable news.
Ye never the like did hear.

Of a drummer his use was at great Houses for to beat
He to one certain house did go and entered in at gate :
At the House of Master Mompesson
he began aloud to beat his drum
0 news, notable news,
Ye never the like did hear.

Alarum, March, and Troop likewise,

he thundered at the gate.

The children frightened at the noise,

Forwarned he was to beat :

But he refused, and his Drum did rattle

as if he had been in some battle

O news, notable news,

Ye never the like did hear.

He said he would not be forbid,

neither by his back nor head,

And had power for what he did,

They did him Rascal call :

No Sir I am no such, quoth he,

two justices1 hands in my pass be.

0 news, notable news,

Ye never the like did hear.

Twas counterfeit he1 did understand,
and then without delay,
He gave his servants their command,
to set this fellow away,

1 " He " is Mompesson.

312

Andrew Lang.

[part

And likewise took away his drum,

" This you'l repent the time will come,"

0 news, notable news,

Te never the like did hear.

About eight o'clock that present night

a drum beat in every room,

Which put them in amaze and fright,

not knowing how it did come :

The first it beat was this old jig,

" Roundheads and Cuckolds come dig, come dig."

0 wonders, notable wonders,

Te never the like did hear.

From eight till four in the morn,
with a rattling thundering noise,
The echo as loud as a horn,
and frights them many wayes,
T appease the noise I understand
they burned the drum out of hand,
0 wonders, notable wonders,
Ye never the like did hear.

But still about the same time
this noise continued,
Yet little hurt they did sustain,
but children thrown from bed,
And then by the hair of the head
they were plucked quite out of bed,
0 wonders, notable wonders,
Te never the like did hear.

From one room to another were they

tost by a hellish fiend,

As if he would them quite destroy

or make of them an end,

And then, some ease after the pain,

They'd be placed in their beds again.

0 wonders, notable wonders,

Te never the like did hear.

The gentleman did give command
to have the children away,
Unto a friend's house out of hand
them safely to convey.

xlv.] The Poltergeist, Historically Considered. 313

Whatever they did it made them wonder
a rattling drum was heard like thunder.
0 wonder*, notable wonders,
Ye never the like did hear.

A Minister being devout at prayer

unto the God on high,

A bed staff was thrown at him there

with bitter vehemency ! 1

He said ' the Son of God appear

to destroy the works of Satan here.5

0 wonders, notable wonders,

Ye never the like did hear.

There's one they call him Anthony
That carried a sword to bed,
And the spirit at him will fly
hard to be resisted,
If his hand out of bed he cast,
the spirit will unto it fast,2
0 wonders, notable wonders,
Ye never the like did hear.

Both Rooms, Stables and Orchard ground

a drum was heard to beat,

And sometimes in the Chymney sound

by night make Cattle sweat,

Both chairs and stools about would gig,

and often times would dance a jig.3

0 wonders, notable wonders,

Ye never the like did hear.

So dreadful were these motions all
by Satan sure appointed,
The Chamber floor would rise and fall
and never a board disjointed :
Then they heard a blow from high
three times u a witch, a witch " did cry,
0 wonders, notable wonders,
Ye never the like did hear.19

The ballad poet says erroneously (as we learn from Mr. Mompesson)
that the children were " frightened by the noise " of the actual drum
in the hands of Drury. Were it otherwise, with a little good will we

1 The same tale in Glanvil. 2 So reported by Glanvil, 1668, 1681.

3 So also Glanvil.

Digitized by

314 Andrew Lang. [part

might suppose that the nervous shock to the "little modest girls
under eleven, caused them hysterically to feign the disturbances witnessed
by Glanvil in their bedroom. Mr. Podmore disables Mr. GlanviTs
evidence. He was far from being a stupid man, and the children
were so very young that I am unwilling to credit them with trickery.
I think, too, that Glanvil published a tract on the affair as early as
1663. In June, 1663, Mr. Pepys tells us "there are books of it,
and, they say, very true." I fancy that Glanvil was probably the
author of one of "these books of it," that he put his narrative later
into his Philosophical Considerations Touching Witches and Witchcraft,
and that the ballad poet simply rhymed after GlanviTs prose (quarto,
1666; folio, 1668). Till the "books" of 1662-1663 are discovered
I must leave the drummer with a few remarks.

I happen to know a modern parallel to Glanvil's alleged scratching^.
A gentleman, distinguished in law and known in politics, informs me
that, going one day upstairs in his house in Maida Vale, he heard a
violent scratching, as if of a highly excited tiger on the outside, as
he deemed, of the nursery door. Running up he found two of his
children (boys, one now grown up corroborated) and the nurse in
great alarm. This accident kept recurring; there were no marks
or scratches on either side of the door. I was told this, as I
suggested that the nurse or the children had scratched the door
with a large comb. The owner of the house, being addressed by
his tenant, showed a nervous anxiety to evade the topic ; and my
acquaintance discovered no explanation. This was his only encounter
with anything so much out of the common run of human experience.
Let us, then, grant that the nurse laid a board of wood, procured for
that purpose, against the door, inside, and violently scratched it
with some instrument, " with intent to deceive," and from a hysterical
desire of notoriety, which she did not obtain, as nobody connected
her with the sounds. This explanation, in fact, did not occur to
the trained legal faculties of her employer.

As for the Mompesson children, the disturbances were worked by
them not only at night, but when put to bed "in fair day." On
Guy Fawkes' day, 1662, a board of wood kept going to and fro in
the day time, "seen by a whole roomful of people," say Glanvil.
Mr. Cragg, the clergyman, who (with two other gentlemen) gave
evidence at Drury's trial (April 15, 1663) prayed in the room, "and
then, in sight of the company, the chairs walked about of them-
selves," so clever were these bad little girls in bed.1 Mr. Mompesson
1 So also in the ballad of 1662.

Digitized by

XLV.]

The Poltergeist, Historically Considered.

315

now sent all the children but the eldest girl away, and took that
impostor, aged ten, into his own bedroom, where the drumming
(the child being in bed) was as active as ever. She, I suppose, also
kept plucking the bed clothes off the bed of the footman (Anthony) ;
or the man said that this annoyance, so common in such cases,
occurred. One child succeeded in making three distinct sets of noises
in her bed, accompanied by wrigglings as of a living thing, in the
bolster.

The Rev. Joseph Glanvil, apparently about March 1663 (the date
1662 must be an error) then visited the house. "There were two
little modest girls in the bed" (naughty little minxes) "between
seven and eleven years as I guessed. I saw their hands out of the
clothes, and they could not contribute to the noise that was made
behind their heads." Mr. Glanvil little knew the artfulness of
little girls. "I searched under and behind the bed, turned up the
cloaths to the Bed-cords, grasped the Bolster, sounded the wall, and
made all the search possible." A friend aided Glanvil in these
studies. A kind of panting noise, apparently under the bed, " shook
the room and windows very considerably." This would be worked
by collusion, some one in the " cock loft " above would be thumping
on the floor ; according to our theory.

Glanvil had critics. He was told that he was in a fright and
hallucinated. "This is the Eternal Evasion," Glanvil replies. He
asserts his perfect coolness, and the certainty of his observations.
Sometimes the children were forced to leave their beds and sit up
all night, which, of course, was the very thing that little girls would
enjoy. GlanviPs report, apart from his own experience, was taken
from Mr. Mompesson's conversation and letters; "he being neither
vain nor credulous, but a discreet, sagacious, and manly person."
In a letter of November 8, 1672, to Glanvil, Mr. Mompesson formally
denied that he had ever told the King, as was rumoured, that "a
cheat had been discovered about that affair" (1). To do so, said
he, would be to perjure himself. He stuck (August 8, 1674) to his
evidence, given at Salisbury, in April, 1663. "The shaking of the
Floor and strongest parts of the House in still and calm Nights,"
Mr. Mompesson especially insisted on, as the ballad of 1662 also
does. Perhaps no little girl could shake the strongest parts of the
house, a phenomenon which was frequent, according to Robert
Chambers, in the case of D. D. Home. I have cited Glanvil mainly
to show the harmony between his version, though late, and that of
the ballad of 1662. But, of course, the lateness of GlanviPs work,

316

Andrew Lang.

[part

and his inexplicable confusion of dates, do not increase our confidence
in his narrative.

The Tedworth case, of course, is not evidential. But I think that
my praiseworthy researches have made it fairly clear that absolutely
contemporary accounts did not vary much from those of Glanvil in
1666-1668 ; that the deplorable ballad is probably versified from a lost
pamphlet of Glanvil's, or some other book almost identical ; that very
tedious and wearying disturbances prompted Mr. Mompesson's con-
temporary deposition, and those of his friends ; and that very young
children could hardly have produced the disturbances, as described,
without detection. The phenomena, again, were of the regular
poltergeist or "spiritualistic" kind, and their true cause was never
discovered. This may, perhaps, be reckoned an advance historically
on the results of Mr. Podmore's investigation ; but he, by the nature
of Mr. Wallace's challenge, was perhaps limited to GlanviFs own
account. Otherwise he would have resorted to the proper Quelle*.
These do not wholly confirm his theory of unconscious exaggeration
after the interval of a few weeks or even years.

As to the Wesley case at Epworth (December, 1716, April (I), 1717),
Mr. Podmore's criticism must be summarised. The evidence consists
of letters (January-April, 1717), between young Sam Wesley, then at
Westminster with Atterbury, and his mother, his father, and two of
his many sisters, at home. We have also an account written for the
inquiring Sam by old Mr. Wesley ; it seems to have been completed by
January 24, and certainly was finished by February 11, 1717. There
is also a brief diary of old Mr. Wesley's — December 21, January 1,
1716-1717. Next comes a set of narratives written in August-Septem-
ber, 1726, at Epworth, for John Wesley (who had been at Charterhouse
in 1717). The writers or narrators in 1726 are Mrs. Wesley, Emily,
Sukey, Nancy, Molly, Eeziah, the Rev. Mr. Hoole, the man servant,
and others. We need not look at a late narrative by John Wesley, a
magazine article.

Taking the papers of 1716-1717, with those of 1726, Mr. Podmore
decides :

(1) That in 1717, "witnesses narrate of their own personal experience
only comparatively tame and uninteresting episodes.1'

(2) "They (1717) allow their imaginations to embellish somewhat
the experience of other members of the household."

The Epworth Case.

xlv.] The Poltergeist t Historically Considered. 317

(3) In 1726 these other members adopt the "imaginative embellish-
ments" of 1717 into their own first-hand accounts.

(4) The witnesses (thanks to what I may call mythopoeic memory),
make, in 1726, additions to or amplifications of their narratives of

Now (1) the personal experiences, say, of Mr. Wesley, recorded in
1717, are not tame, and are not uninteresting, I think, either com-
paratively or positively. He was thrice pushed about by " an invisible
power." Again, this, the oddest of all the phenomena (if Mr. Wesley
was not drunk, and I never heard that he drank too much), is told by
himself of himself, and is not alluded to by any other witness. More-
over, "'it* rattled and thundered, behind and before him, in rooms
locked and unlocked" (record of 1717).1

(2), (3) In 171 7 Mr. Wesley and Emily told Sam, about Mrs. Wesley,
things which she did not tell Sam in 1717, herself, but did tell Jack in
17*26. However, in the letters of Mrs. Wesley, Mr. Wesley, and Sam,
in 1717, it is thrice averred that, in 1717, she "forbore many
particulars," or did not tell " one third " of the circumstances.
Mr. Podmore omits this fact. In 1726, then, she merely did tell
a few of the things which, in 1717, others told, but she confessedly
" forbore." The story of the badger seen by Mrs. Wesley was told by
Emily, in 1717. In 1726, Mrs. Wesley says that Emily was present,
in 1717, when she saw this illusion, let us call it.

(4) Every circumstance "added" in 1717, by Mrs. Wesley, except a
reference to her nightgown and the examination of certain bottles, was
told in 1717 by Mr. Wesley, who was with her in an exploration of the
house and shared her experiences. There was not, in 1717, "one
sound diversely interpreted," as Mr. Podmore declares : there were,
Mr. Wesley says, (1717) two distinct sounds, of breaking glass and
jingling money. The fright of the mastiff was recorded by Mr. Wesley,
in 1717, as well as in 1726 by his wife.

Mr. Podmore has probably not observed this, nor noted that, in
1717, Mrs. Wesley confessedly did not record a third of the experiences.
The two sounds and the mastiff are of contemporary record.

Again, in 1726, Keziah (a child in 1717), did not make mythopoeic
additions to, or even remember her own experiences, recorded by
Emily in 1717 (as by Mr. Podmore's theory she ought to have done),
but could only recall a sound imitative of her father's knock.
Mr. Hoole's account, in 1726, is much less full and much less

1717.

1 The Letters are in Sou they 'a Lift of John Wesley.

318

Andrew Lang.

[fast

"sensational" than Mr. Wesley's description, in 1717, of their
common experiences. Mr. Hoole minimized.

Thus I conceive that Mrs. Wesley, Keziah, and Mr. Hoole, in 1726,
do not embroider upon the records of 1717.

As to the reports of the four sisters, in 1726, two had not written at
all in 1717. The whole family, at that date, were heartily sick of the
subject and of Sam's inquiries. Susan, in 1726, omitted some of the
strangest experiences which, in 1717, she had recorded ; and mentioned
others which, in 1717, she did not chronicle. Mr. Podmore, naturally,
notes Susan's "amplification" in 1726. About the omissions of Susan
in the same year, he, as naturally, says nothing. Emily, in 1726,
makes a considerable and, I suspect, mythic or misplaced addition to
her record of 1717, but she also makes many and most important
omissions. These are not remarked on by Mr. Podmore. Manifesdv,
if he is to argue that, in nine years, there were amplifications, he
ought to notice, also, that the omissions are more numerous and
more important This is so obvious that, if he chose, he might say,
"by 1726 several narrators had become ashamed of, and therefore
omitted, the absurd fables which excitement made them tell in 1717 r
This sceptical argument is really stronger than that which Mr. Pod-
more advances. Perhaps his best plan would be to combine the two.
Where witnesses make additions, in 1726, they act under the influence
of the magnifying power of the memory. Where the same witnesses
make omissions, they do so because they are now ashamed of their ex-
aggerations of 1717, to which, however, they also add, by mythopoeic
exaggeration. The double argument does not commend itself to me
But Mr. Podmore must account for the late omissions, of which he says
not a word, as well as for the amplifications, on which he dwells with
emphasis. At least this is how it strikes me.

We next come to Hetty's case. She is suspicious, as the fraudulent
agent :

(1) Because the agency, she thought, had "had a particular spight
at her," and was noisiest in her neigbourhood. But the agency had
also, we are told, "a particular spight" at Mr. Wesley, going the
length of three personal assaults. If Hetty saw " something like a man
in a loose trailing dressing gown " (she is not said to have seen him),
three or four others in records of 1717 heard the sound like that of a
sweeping dressing gown. Hetty's case is not peculiar in this respect.

(2) Hetty had " the singlar habit of trembling in a sound sleep when
loud noises were going on all around her." So had the two other girls
who shared her bed. (Mr. Wesley, 1717 ; Mrs. Wesley, 1726.)

xx, v.] The Poltergeist, Historically Considered. 319

(3) Hetty did not write an account in 1717, or none survives,
though Emily says that Hetty is writing. Nor are Molly, and Nancy
known to have written in 1717. Hetty's silence is not peculiar to her.

(4) Hetty gave no account to Jack, as the others did, at Epworth in
1726. Where was Hetty in 1726, and on what terms with Jack 1

As a matter of fact, in 1726 Hetty was not at Epworth at all, but
far away, and could not, like the others, be examined by Jack. For
reasons rather obscure, but connected with her recent marriage, Hetty
was in her father's disgrace ; he never forgave her, and, living with her
husband, a plumber of no culture, she was remote from the scene of
Jack's inquiries. The scientific sceptic ought to know the historical
facts of Hetty's case. So wretched and so repentant was this beautiful
and charming girl, and so kind to her was Jack, that she would
probably have confessed to him her early practical joke, if she had
been guilty.

Let me add that, if we are to find a trickster, the new maid-servant
attracts suspicion. The disturbances began with her ; she was
frightened by groans before any one of the family heard anything.
She is also the last recorded percipient of any phenomena (April, 1717).
Mrs. Wesley had a strict eye on her own girls and their lovers ; but
we scarcely ever hear where the new maid-servant was on any of the
many recorded occurrences of an unexplained kind. Mrs. Wesley
acquitted the maid ; but if, as I shall try to show, persons can be
frightened into a hysterical condition, and into fraudulent production
of odd occurrences, it would be easier to frighten a rustic servant girl
than a daughter of the rectory.1

Mr. Podmore himself, I daresay, will be pleased if I have dissipated
his suspicions of Hetty Wesley. I think I have shown, by the
evidence, that her case presented no peculiarities : that she was not the
only sister who did not write to Sam in 1717 ; not the only sister who
trembled in her sleep; and that, in the Long Vacation of 1726, Jack
could not examine her on the spot, as he did the rest of the family,
because she was far away. Then there is the servant maid to fall back
upon as the impostor — she and any waggish swains whom she may
have secreted in the long darkling and winding chamber in the

1 May I add that Mr. Podmore has said nothing about the hints that the noises
were hallucinatory ? Mr. Wesley, like Lord St. Vincent in the Hinton case,,
heard nothing at all till he was told about the noises. Later, he did not hear,
and some of the others did not hear, a " very loud " knock on his own bed, heard
by "most of the family." The Maws, who lived opposite, listened, but heard
nothing, when the noises were " in their full majesty." (Recorded in 1726.)

320

Andrew Lang.

[part

roof of the house. At Epworth a simple boyish mechanism for
producing knocks on the outer walls of a house is even now familiar.
You need no more than a nail, a button, a piece of string, and the
cover of a wall or bush. To be sure this trick does not explain a
tenth of the phenomena described.

It ought to be observed that, according to Emily Wesley, in 1717,
her father had preached against the local " cunning men " for several
Sundays before " old Jeffrey," the bogle, began his pranks. That fact
seems to me to be the key of the situation. At Cideville (1851) a
rural warlock, and two small boys whom he frightened, were certainly
the " agents " in the disturbances. In a strange Red Indian case, of
which I received reports (1899), the agent, a native girl of fourteen,
had received a severe nervous shock from natural causes before heavy
weights began to "tobogan about the floor" of the wigwam, accom-
panied by the usual intelligent knocks and scratches. These, as I now
learn (1901), the Indians, at first sceptical, attributed to the agency of
a medicine man, lately deceased. In Miss Florence O'Neal's Devour
shire Idylls, a good country girl is alarmed by a witch, and heavy
furniture then becomes volatile. No fraud, however, was detected.
Miss O'Neal kindly informed me as to the circumstances. I give
another case, received from a Lincolnshire man, the Rev. Mr. Heanley.

The Rectory, Weyhill, Andovkr, Hants,
October 20th, 1901.

Dear Mr. Lang,

You ask me to furnish you with the particulars of a
**Wise woman " "sending noises," which came under my notice in the
Lincolnshire Marshland. I will do so to the best of my power, although it
will be a necessarily imperfect account, for I was then only just about to
matriculate at Oxford, and I lost all interest in the case when it became
clear that the immediate agent in producing the disturbances was the
servant girl in the house affected. For it never occurred to me to look more
deeply into the matter, and ask the all important question as to what
external influences might have been brought to bear upon her to make her
act in the extraordinary fashion which she did. I simply thought it a case
of hysteria.

It was in the summer of 1867, the year after the cattle plague had raged
in the Marshes, when there was an extraordinary reversion amongst the
numerous small freeholders and little tenant farmers to the use of charms
and spells to safeguard their cows ; and " wise-men " and " wise- women a
reaped a harvest accordingly.

In my own parish of Croft Marsh there were two such reputed " wise
women," Mary X., the wife of a farm bailiff, and Mrs. K., wife of a small
tenant farmer, who kept one servant, a nervous, delicate girL Mary X. had

Digitized by

XLV.]

The Poltergeist, Historically Considered.

321

by far the greater reputation of the two, but Mrs. K. contrived to draw
away some of Mary's wonted customers.

One afternoon the servant, who had been sent on an errand, returned in a
terrible taking. Mary had met her upon the road, and after " lookin' solid "
at her for some time without speaking, had finally said, " Get thee whoam

and tell that old b of a missus of thine that them as I knaws on, does

more than them as she knaws on, and them as can, 5ull larn her wi' shakins
and talkins, and remblins1 to mell wi' jobs as belongs to me. Get thee
whoam, and nioind thou saay I sent thee."

The girl was half dazed with fright, but faithfully delivered her message,
and Mrs. K. flew into a tremendous rage, abusing the girl furiously for
venturing to repeat such " daffle,w and daring old Mary to do her d dest.

But the girl repeatedly said she knew as summat was comin' ; and sure
enough within a week disturbances began in the house, strange whisperings,
unexpected knocks, and finally moving of furniture. At first the manifesta-
tions only took place at night, but in a few days they began in the daytime ;
and it was then that the servant was caught in the act, I think, of fixing
two boards under her bed to form a sort of clapper, and was dismissed on
the spot, when the disturbances promptly ceased, and did not recur again.
But so far as I can recollect the girl stuck stoutly to her assertion that she
had no knowledge of what she was doing, and professed herself as much
alarmed as any one else at the whole affair.

Here as in the Grimsby case (Oct., Nov. 1901) we have malum
minaium, — the witch's threat, — and damnum secutum, a set of Polter-
geist phenomena. It looks almost like an affair of " suggestion : " how
far the trickster (in Mr. Heanley's case) was normally conscious of her
acts, we do not know. In Mr. Podmore's second case, at Wem
(Proceedings, Vol. xii. p. 67) the agent, Emma Davies, "cried out
that an old woman was at her," — the regular old witchcraft symptom,
— and she may have been frightened, as in Mr. Heanley's instance.

Wellington Mill.

The Willington case is closely analogous to that of Epworth, but is
nearer our time by a hundred and twenty years. (1835-1847.) The
best part of the evidence is found in MS. statements, drawn up
daring the disturbances, but not in the shape of a regular diary, by
Mr. Joseph Procter, the occupant of the house (Journal S.P.R.
December, 1892, Vol. v., pp. 331-352). Mr. Procter was a Quaker,
an Anti-Slavery man, an "early tee-totaller " and a good example of
his community. His first statement is of January 28, 1835.

In December 1834, Mrs. Procter first heard of the troubles from the
nurse-maid. With her the experiences began, as at Epworth they
1 To " remble " is to move or shift a thing. Cf. French rembler.

Digitized by

322

Andrew Lang.

[pabt

began, with the maid-servant. The nurse-maid used to sit by the
cradle of one of the children in a room on the second floor. The
chamber above was unoccupied. The earliest phenomena were sounds
of some one walking heavily in the room above, so that the nursery
window rattled, as the windows always do in these cases. Before
many days elapsed "every member of the family" had shared the
experience. In January 1835 the first percipient, the nurse, left; but
the phenomena remained. Some visitors (in January) heard nothing :
" all, with one exception, have been disappointed." (January 28, 1835.)
The "haunted" room, on the third floor, was examined carefully:
nothing in the way of explanation was discovered. There were no
rats : the sounds " had no connection with the weather."

On February 18, 1835, Mr. Procter noted the disturbances since
January 28. On January 31, heavy "deadened" knocks sounded
close to his own bed. Omitting several stories, we find (Dec. 16, 1835)
the sound as of winding up a jack, at Epworth, here of a clock : heard
by Mrs Procter's sister and a companion.

The bed lifting (as in Nancy Wesley's case, reported in 1726) was
part of the experience of Mrs. Procter and nurse Pollard. Mrs. Procter
described it to her son, Edmund, "as if a man were underneath pushing
up the bed with his back." (Dickens describes a slight earthquake
shock in similar terms, substituting " a large beast " for a man, under
the bed.) Sounds of footsteps, knocks, and trailing garments were
common at Willington as at Epworth. One of the little boys "was
found trembling and perspiring with fright," like three of the Epworth
girla Mr. Procter does not recount many of his personal experiences,
which were mainly of sounds, especially an odious kind of " whistling
or whizzing," heavy knockings, and peculiar moans. The visual
hallucinations represented a monkey, " a funny cat," and one or two
human phantasms, not beheld by Mr. Procter. In 1847, after twelve
years of annoyance, the Procters left Willington : there was a tremen-
dous charivari the night before they departed. As at Tedworth, a
report was circulated that Mr. Procter had discovered the cause of the
phenomena to be a trick practised upon him. This, like Mr. Mompes-
son, he denied. (Tynemouth, January 7, 1858.) The circulation of
this false explanation is, itself, one of the recurrent phenomena, in
these cases. No mortal has ever yet discovered, what Sir Walter
Scott could not find, " Funny Joe's " confession of having caused the
Woodstock disturbances. But Funny Joe is always cited, as if he
were an authentic authority. His evidence is precisely on a par with
the girl who talked Greek and Hebrew, that old favourite of the

XLV.] The Poltergeist, Historically Considered. 323

authors of scientific manuals of psychology. For science is easily
satisfied, when the evidence suits the theory in vogue.

Here, speaking as an anthropological amateur, I would again remark
on the uniformity of the phenomena from the Eskimo (Rink) to my
Red Indian case, in Hudson Bay Company Territory, to D. D. Home,
or to the most ignorant little country girl, or to very early missionary
reports from newly conquered Peru, or to Mr. Dennys's Chinese cases,
or those of Catholic missionaries in Cochin China ; it is always the old
story of Epworth, Tedworth, Amherst, Rerrick, and so forth. The
thing is "Universally Human." Why? Is there a traditional trick; a
common hallucination (as Coleridge thought) or are we still to seek for a
theory ? Mr. Podmore (1896-97) has the Arundel case. "A bewitched"
girl was producing " scratchings/' which on a given occasion (Feb. 8,
1884) were, beyond all doubt, fraudulent, as was proved by Mr.
Hubbert* F.R.C.S. (Proceedings, Vol. xii., p. 67.) Earlier in the
evening, however, according to the girl's mother, a " perfectly honest
witness," the sounds occurred while she held the child's hands. The
mother tried another bed in another room. " She states that the first
bed heaved up (as at Epworth and Willington), and that, when
they went into the second room, the bed and everything in the
room shook." Had the girl "crammed" the Tedworth, Epworth,
and Willington cases," with a crowd of others, British and foreign 1
Had the child been studying historic records, or have they become
orally familiar 1 Once the thing began, the child could scratch her
mattress when nobody was in the room, and she did. But about
the heaving up of the bed, — that she could not do, while in the
bed. Was the mother hallucinated in the traditional way, like
Robert Chambers, when with D. D. Home ?

" The chamber floor would rise and fall,
And never a board disjointed ! "

What we really desire is an answer to the question : How do
these stories come to be told ? I am not too contented with the
answer, "Because young people play a few foolish tricks: the rest
is all exaggeration and hallucination." It is the extraordinary
uniformity in the reports, from every age, country, and class of
society, the uniformity in hallucination, that makes the mystery.

I may be allowed to quote, not as " evidential " but as illustrative
of this uniformity, a few cases from Monsieur de Mirville; as his
book is not in the hands of everybody. I cite the second edition
<1854). This is not the tract in which de Mirville published the

Digitized by Google

324

Andrew Lang.

[PABT

depositions of witnesses in the Cideville case (1850-1851). In the
work of 1854, he argues from these depositions in the court of the Juge
de Paix at Yerville. In 1854 he collects other examples.

Into the case of Angelique Cottin, which began on January 15, 1846,
I cannot go, for lack of a complete dossier, or collection of documents.
On January 15, 1854, objects flew about in the girl's neighbourhood.
Next day, the neighbours had picked out some one as the witch
or wizard who threw the spell on her. The disturbances went oo,
the curi was called in, was sceptical, then verified the facts, and sent
for the doctors. They were puzzled. On February 2, the famous
Arago brought the affair before the Academy of Science. He him-
self, with M.M. Mathieu and Laugier, had observed the phenomena.
A committee of the Academy of Science did not witness anything
unusual, and Angelique was dismissed as non avenue. The Gazette <k*
Hdpiiaux (March 17) blamed the committee for satisfying neither
believers nor sceptics. How were the experiences of Arago and the
rest to be explained 1 The Gazette Midicale declared that the Academy
" had exceeded its powers. . . . The non-appearance of the pheno-
mena, at a given moment, proves nothing."

Mr. Podmore (Journal S.P.R., June, 1899) refers briefly to the
stone-throwing case at Paris, reported in the Gazette des Tribunava
(February 2, 1854). The affair on February 2 had lasted for three
weeks. There was a rain of missiles against an isolated house, which
was in a painfully battered condition* The police, aided by dogs,
did their best, but could track the missiles to no source. Planks had
to be nailed on to the openings of the windows and the door place.

Mirville, not till the following winter, went to make inquiries at
the office of the Gazette. He learned that the owner of the house
was suspected of having destroyed his own property: others said
that a criminal had been caught. This rumour the police denied
As for the sufferer, Lezible, the occupant of the house, he showed to
Mirville the de'bris of his properties, and a scar from one of the
flying stones. "What had I to get by smashing my furniture,
mirrors, clock, crockery, to the value of £60 ? " What indeed '
An odd point was that Lezible shut his outer shutters, which had a
narrow chink where the two flaps met. This didn't baffle the stone
throwers. Long thin pieces of tile now flew through the chink !
The secretaries of the Commissary of police assured Mirville that
absolutely no explanation had been discovered. Now it is easy to
try whether Mr. Podmore or I can bombard a house with stones
for weeks without being "run in." If "run in" we could explain

xlv.] The Poltergeist, Historically Considered. 325

to the worthy beak that we were engaged in scientific experiments.
However, the case is not " evidential," it merely donne a penser.

Any member of the Society who can muster up energy enough to
go to the British Museum, may there find a serial styled Douglas
Jerrold, for March 26, 1847. Or perhaps he may not find it. Mirville
cites this paper, at all events, for the unusual phenomena in the house
of a Mr. Williams, Moscow Road, Bayswater. He had a family of
four, and nourished a Spanish boy of nine to ten years old. For days
the furniture flew up and down. The modus operandi of the child of
ten was never discovered, but, being a foreigner, he was suspected. A
• similar affair, on a larger scale, occurred in 1849 at Saint Quentin
(Gazette des Tribunaux, December 20, 1849). No explanation was
discovered; the fracas lasted for three weeks. A case like that of
Angelique Cottin was reported in the Constitutionel, March 5, 1849.
The agent was a girl of fourteen. The trouble began as she was
putting a child to bed ; a cupboard door burst open, and a quantity of
linen flew at the girl. After that " all was gas and gaiters " ;
the furniture danced as usual. M. Larcher, the local physician at
Saucheville, attested the facts. The girl had been instrumental in
effecting the arrest of a rural malefactor ; after his release from prison
the phenomena began. A sack used to fly at the girl and envelop
her ; heavy planks behaved as at Tedworth. The girl was carefully
watched, day and night, for a fortnight, by one of the ladies of her
employer's family. The girl was sent to her parents, and recovered,
but the phenomena attached themselves, at her former master's house,
to a baby four months old. A newspaper, L'Abeille, of Chartres
(March 11, 1849), published the letter of an eyewitness who had seen
odd things in the child's cradle, arriving he knew not how, but he
does not say that he saw them arrive. The editor sent two reporters,
who collected plenty of anecdotes. The curd exorcised the child, after
convincing himself of the reality of the facts : how he does not say.
The exorcism succeeded. Obviously the evidence is always given in
the very vaguest fashion : in each case it is worth a rush, but a fairly
thick band of rushes is difficult to break, and we are still to seek
for an explanation of the uniformity of the descriptions.

As to the Cideville case (1851), Mr. Podmore does not seem to have
found the pamphlet of M. de Mirville, containing the depositions of
witnesses, and I am not aware that Mr. Wallace has supplied him with
a copy. I have, therefore, through the kindness of the Marquis
dfEguilles and of the Juge de Paix at Yerville, procured a transcript
from the archives of the Court, of the proceedings in the trial of

326

Andrew Lang.

[part

M. TineL I lay these documents at the feet of the Society, in the
interests of History. We cannot criticise the historical Poltergeist
without going to historical sources. Our systems and theories must
be applied to facts, or at least to contemporary records.

As to the Cideville records, they form a large dossier. With the
permission of the Society I shall analyse and quote from them later.
Manifestly they are the only authentic source for the Cideville affair.
The transcripts are a present to the Society from the Marquis d'Eguilles,
who has no particular interest in these investigations, but much in
documentary evidence in disputed points of history. I wish to record
my thanks to him for this aid, not only in the matter of the poltergeist,
but in many other researches.

[We owe much gratitude to Mr. Lang and to the Marquis
dTSguilles for this valuable gift of a complete copy of the official
prods verbal of the Cideville trial. It is not reprinted here, for
want of space, but we hope to make use of it in a future Part of
the Proceedings. — Editor.]

XLV.]

Remarks on Mr. Lang's Paper.

327

REMARKS ON MR. LANG'S PAPER.

By Frank Podmore.

Mr. Lang's historical researches into the evidence for the Tedworth
Poltergeist incidentally afford strong support to my position. Briefly,
that position is that, when we succeed in getting the testimony of
educated and intelligent witnesses at first-hand, and not too remote,
we find that the Poltergeist's performances were tolerably commonplace;
and that the really marvellous incidents in every case rest either upon
mere rumour, or upon the evidence of uneducated and incompetent
witnesses, or more rarely upon the testimony of educated witnesses
given long after the events. Mr. Lang, it will be seen, has discovered
two additional sources of evidence: the "deplorable ballad," and
Mr. Mompesson's first-hand evidence, given in Court in April, 1663.
The ballad, as might be anticipated, repeats the same sort of
stuff that Glanvil had given us at second-hand — the throwing of
the bed-staff, the dancing of chairs and stools, the pulling the
children out of bed, the attack upon the man-sen-ant in his bed, and
so on. But Mompesson, in his deposition, testifies only to the beating
of the drum, knocking, " several great noises, scratching, troubling the
beds." Even this evidence, since Mompesson gives no details, and does
not say whether he himself heard and saw these things, or whether
he is merely summarising the experience of his household, is of no
particular value except to show the utmost length to which a
responsible and intelligent witness could go. Practically, that is,
Mompesson's evidence adds nothing to the evidence of Glanvil,
which I had already cited. Now, I by no means intended to reflect
on Glanvil as a witness. No doubt, as Mr. Lang says, he was " far
from being a stupid man," and probably he was about as good a witness
as the times could have afforded. But I pointed out that his narrative
was scantily furnished with dates. Mr. Lang goes further, and shows
that the dates given are wrong. I further pointed out that his account

328

Frank Podmore.

[part

was apparently not written down until some years later. Mr. Langs
reply to this is that the ballad, at any rate, confirms Glanvil's account
of the disturbances in general. But that account is worthless anyway ;
and is not rendered more or less worthless by the ballad. The only
item in Glanvils report having any value as evidence is his account of
what he himself saw and heard ; and the ballad has no bearing upon
that

But Glanvil says that when he was present " it shook the room and
windows very sensibly." Mompesson also describes " the shaking of
the floor and strongest parts of the house in still and calm nights.1"
Mr. Lang doubts the ability of a little girl to perform this feat Mr.
Langs experience has obviously been more peaceful than my own.
This shaking of the room by continuous slight movements of one foot
and leg, and doubtless by any other slight movement repeated at
regular intervals, is the easiest of domestic arts to acquire, and also,
experto crede, the most difficult of all pernicious habits to eradicate ; for
it can be done unconsciously, and is frequently so performed by a
certain acquaintance — if indeed I may claim him as an acquaintance —
of my own.

On the whole, I take it that Mr. Lang and I are in substantia]
agreement about the Tedworth case : it is interesting, but evidential
only in so far as it shows that the ways of Poltergeists and children
were much the same in the seventeenth century as in the twentieth.
Incidentally, I note that the parallel case which Mr. Lang cites, on
the authority of a gentleman " distinguished in law and known
in politics," is in a fair way to become itself interesting from the
antiquarian standpoint. When Mr. Lang first heard the account he
does not say ; but at any rate the father's story is corroborated by the
son, now a grown man, but then a child in the nursery.

But Mr. Lang's views diverge much more widely from mine, I regret
to say, on the Wesley case. I will take the points in order, referring
to the numbered paragraphs in Mr. Lang's article.

(1) My argument is based upon a comparison of the earlier and
later accounts by the same witness. It had therefore only an indirect
reference to Mr. Wesley's testimony, in which no such comparison is
possible. But) since Mr. Lang challenges me, I will admit that Mr.
Wesley seems to have been able, without the help of the nine years'
interval, to present us with a narrative which is not tame or
uninteresting.

(2) and (3) Mr. Lang writes: "In 1717 Mr. Wesley and Emily
told Sam, about Mrs. Wesley, things which she did not tell Sam

XLV.]

Remarks on Mr. Lan<f8 Paper.

329

in 1717 herself, but did tell Jack in 1726. However, in the letters
of Mrs. Wesley, Mr. Wesley, and Sam, in 1717, it is thrice averred
that in 1717 she ( forbore many particulars,' or did not tell 4 one
third ' of the circumstances. Mr. Podmore omits this fact.'

This statement of the case hardly, I submit, brings out the facts.
At the risk of being tedious, I will quote the passages referred to in Mr.
Lang's "thrice averred." Firstly, Mrs. Wesley writes (25th-27th January,
1717) : " It commonly was nearer her (Hetty) than the rest, which she
took notice of, and was much frightened, because she thought it had a
particular spite at her. / could multiply particular instances, but I
forbear." The passage, as printed, seems to refer to the connection of
the disturbances with Hetty. Sam Wesley, it is true, interprets the pas-
sage somewhat differently. He writes, secondly, in reply to his mother's
letter: "You say you could multiply particular instances of the
spirit's noises, but I want to know whether nothing was ever seen by
any" (letter of February 12th, 1717). In any case, I submit, the
passage will not bear Mr. Lang's interpretation. The refusal to multiply
particular instances is hardly equivalent to the suppression of incidents
of a different and more marvellous nature. There remains, thirdly,
Mr. Wesley's testimony. He writes : " Your mother has not written
you a third part of it" (letter of 11th February). On this the only
comment which seems to be required is that Mr. Wesley neither says
nor implies that Mrs. Wesley had withheld any of her own experiences.
Mr. Lang's statement, therefore, that "in 1717 Mrs. Wesley con-
fessedly did not record a third of the experiences " seems to me to go
beyond the warrant of the record. The only person who confesses so
much is Mr. Wesley ; but he did his best, in his own diary, to com-
pensate for the alleged deficiency. And Mr. Lang's inference that
amongst the omitted experiences were some of Mrs. Wesley's own,
different in kind to those which she did describe, appears to me not to
be justified either by the written record or by common-sense.

Mr. Lang adds that Emily, as well as her father, mentioned in 1717
that Mrs. Wesley had seen a badger. Precisely; but Mrs. Wesley was
not, as would appear from her silence despite Sam's appeal to her,
sufficiently sure of having seen it to mention it in 1717. The conviction
only grew with years. Surely the vision of a spectral badger could
hardly come under the heading : " Multiplication of particular
instances " !

(4) " Every circumstance added in 1726 by Mrs. Wesley was told
in 1717 by Mr. Wesley." That is part of my argument. In 1717,
with the incidents fresh in her memory, Mrs. Wesley refused to " let

330

Frank Podmore.

[part

herself go": in 1726 she incorporated with her own memory of the
incidents the memories and imaginations of other people.

Mr. Hoole's account in 1726 is less sensational than Mr. Wesley's
account of the same incident in 1717. Mr. Lang infers that Mr.
Hoole minimised. I claim equal license to infer that Mr. Wesley
magnified. Secwrus judicet orbis.

In their later narratives Emily and Susannah omit several incidents
which they had recorded in their earlier accounts, and insert others
which found no place in their original statements. Mr. Lang contends
that my argument, being founded on the alleged exaggerations con-
tained in the later reports, is vitiated, because "the omissions are
more numerous and important." More numerous they no doubt are :
their relative importance, of course, depends upon the standard which
we adopt. I notice that the incidents omitted from the later accounts
are merely additional descriptions of various kinds of noises ; but the
incidents inserted are of a wholly different kind — to wit, physical
movements, in Emily's case movements of a very striking character,
and I claim that these additions, from the evidential standpoint at any
rate, are much more important than the omissions.

Now as to Hetty's part in the business. My demonstration — or
attempted demonstration — of the untrustworthiness of the testimony
is of course in no way affected by the question of Hetty's agency in the
matter. I fear, indeed, that I may seem wanting in chivalry in
returning to the charge. But the indications are so much stronger
than would appear from Mr. Lang's account of the matter that it seems
necessary to do so. My suspicions of Hetty are founded on the
following passages, which I quote afresh :

Mrs. Wesley writes, January 25th and 27th, 1717: "All the
family, as well as Robin, were asleep when your father and I went
downstairs (on the nocturnal exploration referred to by Mr. Lang), nor
did they wake in the nursery when we held the candle close by them,
only we observed that Hetty trembled exceedingly in her sleep, as she
always did before the noise awaked her. It commonly was nearer her
than the rest." Emily writes (1717) : " No sooner was I got upstairs,
and undressing for bed, but I heard a noise among many bottles that
stand under the best stairs, just like the throwing of a great stone
among them, which had broken them all to pieces. This made me
hasten to bed ; but my sister Hetty, who sits always to wait on my
father going to bed, was still sitting on the lowest step of the garret
stairs."

And again : " It never followed me as it did my sister Hetty. I

Digitized by

XLV.]

Remarks on Mr. Lang's Paper.

331

have been with her when it has knocked under her, and when she has
removed has followed, and still kept just under her feet."

Mrs. Wesley, in her later account, after describing loud noises
which they heard in their bedroom, writes: "Mr. Wesley leapt up,
called Hetty, who alone was up, and searched every room in the
house."

Susannah, in her later account, writes : " Presently began knocking
about a yard within the room on the floor. It then came gradually to
sister Hetty's bed, who trembled strongly in her sleep. It beat very
loud, three strokes at a time, on the bed's head."

Finally, in John Wesley's version of Mr. Hoole's experience, we
read : " When we " (i.e. Mr. Wesley and Mr. Hoole) " came into the
nursery it was knocking in the next room ; when we were there it was
knocking in the nursery, and there it continued to knock, though we
came in, particularly at the head of the bed (which was of wood), in
which Miss Hetty and two of her younger sisters lay.0

Mr. Lang's reply to this is: "It was said (by Emily Wesley in 1717)
to have a particular spite against Mr. Wesley, and Mr. Wesley tells us
that it thrice pushed him about." Moreover, Hetty's habit of trembling
in her sleep was not "singular," because Mr. Wesley tells us in 1717
and Mrs. Wesley in 1726 that the two children who shared Hetty's
bed did the same. I am indebted to Mr. Lang for a further illustra-
tion, which had escaped my notice, of embellishment in Mrs. Wesley's
later account. In describing in 1717 the visit to the nursery, Mrs.
Wesley says, in the passage already quoted, that "Hetty trembled
exceedingly in her sleep." In 1726, referring to the same occasion,
she writes : " The children were all asleep, but panting, trembling, and
sweating exceedingly." The reader can judge which version is likely
to be the more accurate.

Mr. Lang has done nothing to explain why Hetty did not write to
her brother Samuel in 1717, though she had apparently allowed her
sister Susannah to suppose that she had done so (letter of March 27th,
1717) : nor is it clear to me why Jack did not obtain her testimony
in 1726, if— as was no doubt the case — he realized its importance.
There were posts in those days ; and Mr. Lang tells us that Hetty
was on good terms, at any rate with Jack.

To reply to Mr. Lang's summary : Mrs. Wesley and Emily both
assert that the noises were most frequent in Hetty's neighbourhood
Mrs. Wesley and Susannah both mention that Hetty trembled strongly
in her sleep. By the testimony of Mrs. Wesley and Emily, Hetty, on
at least two occasions, was up and about the house alone when the

332

Frank Podmore.

[past

disturbances were in progress. Susannah states that Hetty had
written a full account to Sam Wesley in 1717 ; but Hetty either did
not write or her letter has not been preserved. Nor did she write to
John Wesley in 1726. The presumption of Hetty's guilty agency
afforded by these considerations is not perhaps very strong ; but Mr.
Lang's arguments seem to me to detract but little from such strength
as it possesses.

But, once more, the point is of little importance. Hetty may have
been entirely innocent of any share, conscious or unconscious, in the
performance. The question in any case has little bearing upon the
evidence. I cannot find that Mr. Lang has done anything to impair
my demonstration of the untrustworthiness of the evidence upon which
the case rests : he has in met unwittingly supplied me with a further
illustration of my argument. My omission to discover this particular
instance for myself is the only omission of all those with which he
charges me to which I am prepared to plead guilty.

Further Remarks.

333

FURTHER REMARKS.

By Andrew Lang.

It is hard to make my reply to Mr. Podmore short. I may say that
I did not quote the Tedworth ballad as proof of the facts, but to
show that Glanvil's mythopoeic memory did not invent them between
1662-1666. Mr. Mompesson's deposition is not in detail: I have
vainly tried to recover, at Salisbury, the evidence of his witnesses
and himself under examination. I do not believe that a child of ten,
in bed, could shake a room in a squire's house of 1662. What a
child, in bed, can do in a modern London house, I leave to the larger
experience of Mr. Podmore. My "antiquarian" story, of circ. 1875,
is not more "antiquarian" than many in the Society's Census of
Hallucinations, is much less "remote" than several of thesa As to
Epworth, we have in Mr. Wesley's notes, the evidence, desiderated
by Mr. Podmore, of "an educated and intelligent witness at first
hand," to Poltergeist performances wot "tolerably commonplace,"
not "comparatively tame and uninteresting." We have more in Lord
St. Vincent's account of the disturbances at Mrs. Rickett's house,
Hinton, and in Mr. Procter's notes at Willington Mill. Mr. Pod-
more admits this for Mr. Wesley, and I regard Lord St. Vincent
as a witness quite as trustworthy.

I still do not find that Mr. Podmore, in March, 1899, mentioned
that Mrs. Wesley (Jan. 25-27, 1717), forbore to "multiply particular
instances," — as she says she could do, — and did not tell " one-third of
it." On this head I shall not follow Mr. Podmore's attempts to put a
special sense on " particular." The reason why Mrs. Wesley gave a
fuller account (which I take to have been oral) to Jack in 1726, than
in her letter to Sam in 1717 is obvious to any unprejudiced reader.
A sensible woman, now free from anxiety as to Sam's and his brothers'
health, with a hundred household and parochial cares, she did not
write "a third of it." On March 27, 1717, she writes: "I am quite

334

Andrew Lang.

[part

tired of hearing or speaking of it." That is the simple explanation of
her brevity when writing in 1717, and of her relative copiousness in
telling in 1726. Emily also, in 1717, writes: "I could tell you abun-
dance more of it," but she is lazy about writing. Is not this the
almost universal experience of psychical researchers, when they ask
for information by letter? Mr. Hoole, in 1717, did not write at all, as
Sam desired, or no letter exists, and I conceive that there was pro-
bably another letter by Emily, and perhaps one by Hetty, of March
27, which we do not possess. Mrs. Wesley and Emily, in 1717, had
"abundance more to tell" which they did not then write; if they
were more copious by word of mouth, in 1726, it does not follow
that they were myth making. I exhibit specimens of Mr. Pod-
more's reasoning.

In 1717 Mr. Wesley and Emily say that Mrs. Wesley saw ("thought
she saw," writes Mr. Wesley), a badger (hallucination, no doubt).
Mrs. Wesley corroborated this in 1726, but did not write to Sam about
it in 1717. I take it to be one of the "particular instances" which
she then omitted ; but that is only my opinion. Mr. Podmore writes :
" Mrs. Wesley was not, as appears from her silence despite Sams
appeal to her, sufficiently sure of having seen it to mention it in
1717." But she did, in her family circle, mention it, unless Mr.
Wesley and Emily invented her vision at the time.

Again "every circumstance added in 1726 by Mrs. Wesley was told
in 1717 by Mr. Wesley," I remarked. Mr. Podmore replies : "That is
part of my argument. In 1717, with the incidents fresh in her
memory, Mrs. Wesley refused to 'let herself go': in 1726 she incor-
porated with her own memory of the iucidents the memories and
imaginations of other people," for example, the evidence of her
husband (his evidence of his own experiences), which fact Mr. Podmore
left out.

It is part of everybody's "argument" that the testimony of
educated and intelligent witnesses at first hand" is the best. Mr.
Podmore gets it from Mr. Wesley, as to the mastiff, for example.
But he omits it, till Mrs. Wesley corroborates in 1726, and then
he dismisses her evidence, as an "imagination of other people, n
" incorporated in her memory," with the same logic as he devotes to
Mr. Wesley's statement, in 1717, that the other children, as well as
Hetty, trembled (Mrs. Wesley adds— 1726 — panted and sweated Jin their
sleep. Mrs. Wesley, in 1717, only mentioned the trembling of Hetty,
and this peculiarity was made part of the case against Hetty (Journal,
March, 1899, p. 44). Mr. Podmore omitted to mention Mr. Wesley's

XLV.]

Further Remarks.

335

equally contemporary statement that the other children also trembled :
Mr. Wesley sat by them alone. As Mrs. Wesley, in 1726, tells us what
Mr. Wesley told in 1717, Mr. Podmore, who had omitted Mr. Wesley's
evidence to the point, thanks me for "a further illustration of
embellishment in Mrs. Wesley's later account." But why did he not
give Mr. Wesley's evidence, and why should it be discredited ? The
logic baffles me. Is it, then, part of Mr. Podmore's argument to omit
portions of the evidence of a first-hand, contemporary, educated, and
intelligent witness ? He calls Mrs. Wesley's mention of the terror of
the mastiff, given in 1726, an addition by Mrs. Wesley, "a decorative
detail." But he did not tell us that Mr. Wesley gave the detail in
1717. This evidence of the kind of witness chosen by himself,
educated, intelligent, contemporary, at first hand, he omitted in the
Journal, March, 1899.

He also, I repeat, omitted to mention that witnesses, in 1726,
omitted parts of what they wrote in 1717. He may reckon the things
omitted less important than the things added. The witnesses, how-
ever, had their own standard, and, in Emily's " abundance of more
things to tell," — but not told, — in 1717, and not alluded to by Mr.
Podmore, may very well be the things told by her in 1726. In 1726
Sukey omitted what she told in 1717 concerning the sound as of a
man walking in her room, in a trailing garment. Mr. Hoole, in 1726,
spoke to the same experience. In any case, when a critic is dwelling
on late additions, he should, I think, also record late omissions, and
the fact that two witnesses certainly and confessedly did make
omissions in 1726, whatever these omissions may have been.

As to Mr. Hoole, I think that I may have misled Mr. Podmore by
my own inaccuracy. I said that "Mr. Hoole," in 1726, "minimised."
The feet is, first, that he does not seem to have been always with
Mr. Wesley, who was alone when some odd things occurred, Mr.
Hoole being upstairs. Secondly, in 1726, Mrs. Wesley says that, in
Mr. Hoole's presence, the noises were " lower than usual," but Mr.
Podmore may discard her statement. But, when I erroneously said
that "Mr. Hoole minimised," Mr. Podmore replies, "I claim equal
license to infer that Mr. Wesley magnified." Memory, I have insisted,
may magnify, or may minimise. But it magnifies in Mr. Wesley's
case ; minimises in Mr. Hoole's, just as may happen to suit Mr. Pod-
more's contention. Meanwhile, as before, the contemporary, first-
hand, educated, intelligent witness goes to the wall in the person of
Mr. Wesley.

As to Hetty, I merely repeat that there was nothing singular in her

336

Andrew Lang.

[part

case. There are circumstances, and such were Hetty's, in and after
1726, when only a very resolute researcher will vex a woman with
letters about an old ghost story.

May I suggest that as the Wesley papers are very easily accessible
in Southey's Life of John Wedey, the curious had better read them
for themselves f I quite think that Emily, in 1726, did add a myth
or two, as I think I hinted already.

Note.

[Two points in the above argument may be briefly referred to :

(1) The evidence of Mr. Wesley. Mr. Lang calls this first-hand.
Mr. Pod more draws a distinction between the first-hand part of it,—
that relating to Mr. Wesley's own experiences, — and the^second-hand
part, — that relating to the experiences of others. A summary of Mr.
Wesley's account of his own experiences, including details of what Mr.
Lang calls " the oddest of all the phenomena," viz., his being " thrice
pushed by an invisible power," was given by Mr. Podmore in the
Journal, March, 1899, with instances in which Mr. Wesley's second-
hand testimony as to the experiences of others represented their experi-
ences as more remarkable than would appear from their own amU»
porary accounts.

(2) The later evidence contains, says Mr. Lang, omissions as well as
additions ; thus it does not in all respects exaggerate, but in some cases
probably minimises ; and this tends to show that the additions need
not be exaggerations. Mr. Podmore, in his remarks above, contend)
that the omissions relate chiefly to the less marvellous kinds of incidents,
viz., noises ; whereas the additions introduce various instances of the
more marvellous kinds, such as " physical phenomena." (It has often
been observed that " physical phenomena " tend to be introduced into
late or second-hand accounts.) Now it is inevitable that many details
should be forgotten after a time by witnesses, and it might have beea
expected a priori that for this reason later narratives would generally
be less striking and detailed than contemporary ones. As a matter of
fact, the opposite is generally the case, which shows, as we all know,
that there is a tendency to exaggerate unusual events in retrospect.

In this case the arguments brought forward on both sides, togetker
with the original records, will give the reader full material for estim-
ating the value of first-hand as compared with second-hand, and
contemporary as compared with later testimony, and we do not propose
to continue the discussion. — Editor.]

xlv.] Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper. 33T

IV.

DISCUSSION OF THE TKANCE PHENOMENA ]/
OF MRS. PIPER.

By Hereward Carrington.

§ 1. Introductory.

Thk importance of the problems arising from a study of Mrs. Piper, —
her trance-utterances and automatic script, — cannot well be over-
estimated. It would almost seem that the S.P.R. had at length reached
the crux in its history ; that turning point which it is impossible to
ignore. And, apart from absolute suspension of judgment and
neutrality of mind, which few of us possess, there seem to be two, and
only two, roads open to the impartial investigator : one leading direct
to Spiritism; the other diverging off, and leading us into a maze of
" unknowns " and speculative hypotheses, which, though ingenious, are
nevertheless somewhat unwarrantable, and do not afford us much
mental satisfaction. The whole case is one continuous series of
glorious uncertainties; of doubts, suspicions, semi-convictions, more
doubts and again uncertainties, leaving us dissatisfied with ourselves
and wondering whether, after all, there is such a truth as Spiritism or
no ! But the problem must be faced ; the last report on the Piper
phenomena has brought this question to a head, and we must decide in
our own minds at any rate as to the source of the knowledge displayed.
There really seem to be but two hypotheses which we need consider in
this case : one, the Spiritistic; this we accept only after failing in
every other conceivable direction ; the other, any hypothesis or com-
bination of hypotheses which affords a reasonable explanation of the
phenomena in question. Of the two, it is hardly necessary to say
which one is likely to be more widely accepted, if only a loophole is left
open by which the other is evaded. There are, in the first place, many
weighty a priori assumptions against the probability of the Spiritistic
Hypothesis in the Piper case. That only one medium should have

338

Hereward Garrvngtoru

[PABT

supplied us with sufficiently strong evidence of " spirit return " to make
that hypothesis even the most probable one is in itself a most extra-
ordinary and suspicious circumstance ; and that we should base oar
belief in the survival of the soul, nay, in the very existence of a soul at
all, upon the automatic scrawl of one entranced woman is to some of us
a most stupendous assumption. But a priori objections must here be
set on one side, and the facts of the case met with a counter-argument
sufficiently strong to render this alternative hypothesis at least a
reasonable one. Now it must be admitted that the arguments brought
forward by Professor Hyslop in his Report make the Spiritistic hypo-
thesis at least thinkable, and, instead of struggling and straining our
facts to make them appear supernormal and spiritistic in character, the
facts themselves are of such a nature that they force one to seek for
hypotheses that will account for the knowledge shown without reverting
to the supposition that the communicators are " veritably the person
alities that they claim to be," 1 i.e. that they are spirits. The necessty
of such a hypothesis is obvious if we are to discard that one with which
Dr. Hodgson and Professor Hyslop have supplied us, and it is the
object of this paper to suggest an explanation, which, while leaving
many points undecided and unexplained, yet seems to me to fulfil most
of the requirements of the case ; and, indeed, this is all that can be said
of the Spiritistic hypothesis, which, while it has many good points and
strong evidence in its favour, yet has also many contradictory state-
ments to account for, and many extraordinary difficulties to contend
with before it clears itself from all suspicion.
To turn, then, to the Piper phenomena.

§ 2. The hypotheses already advanced to account for the phenomena.

Of the various hypotheses that have been brought forward tt>
"explain" this remarkable case, fraud is very naturally the first one
which will have to be met and refuted. Until this factor is
eliminated the entire evidence is, of course, evidentially worthless.
But I shall not dwell upon the question here. Every one who ha>
been associated with Mrs. Piper for any length of time, or studied
her trances, or even the written reports, has, I believe, become
firmly convinced that she is not a conscious impostor. Of course
it is next to impossible to prove this on paper. I am aware that
many persons still continue to believe that Mrs. Piper obtains her
information in a perfectly normal manner; by inquiries of paid

1 Proceedings S.P.R., Vol. xm. p. 406.

xlv.] Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper. 339

agents, and by the " information bureau " system, if I may so call
it, exposed in the Revelations of a Spirit Medium. No doubt this
is very extensively employed by mediums in this country (U.S.A.),
but I do not believe that Mrs. Piper obtains her information in this
way. However, it is unnecessary to dwell on this point, and I shall
not discuss it further.

The remark is sometimes made that Mrs. Piper's trance utterances
represent nothing more than "the wanderings of a hysterical woman."
It is, of course, chiefly made by persons who have never studied or
even seen the Piper reports published in the Proceedings) but I
discovered not long ago a very similar statement from the pen of
one of our most valued critics and contributors to the work of the
Society. In Cock Lane and Common Sense (p. 327), Mr. Andrew Lang
accuses Dr. Carpenter of an "almost incredible ignorance of what
evidence is." Now, without impertinence, it seems to me that
Mr. Lang exposes himself to very much the same charge when he
describes Mrs. Piper's automatic script as "very mournful and
incoherent utterances " (Independent, Dec. 1901, p. 2869). Mr. Lang
has openly expressed his dislike for the Piper phenomena before now,
but that is no excuse for his wilful disregard of the specific facts
indicated in this series of trance sittings.

Regarding the theories of fraud and hysteria as removed from the
field, therefore, we now come to the various hypotheses that may be
suggested as counter-arguments to Spiritism. In the first place it must
be conceded that both muscle-reading and suggestion (conscious and
unconscious), are generally out of the question ; the former, as there is
no contact between medium and sitter ; the latter we may disregard, as
a study of the stenographic reports fails to indicate more than the
faintest suggestions, and these on very rare occasions. As the reports
are verbatim, I suppose they are to be relied upon.

The same objections hold good with regard to hypercesthesia on the
medium's part. Indeed, it is hard to see where this could possibly
come in, generally speaking.

The question of chance, pure and simple, is absurd ; especially in the
case of 6. P., and in Professor Hy slop's sittings, as his statistical table
abundantly shows (Vol. xvi. p. 121).

As to knowledge gained unconsciously by the medium : that may perhaps
explain some few incidents, but very few, and is not worth considering
seriously.

Nor will secondary or multiplex personality alone account for the
phenomena; for, though the necessary dramatic play may here be

340

Hereward Carrington,

[pabt

exhibited, this personality would lack the requisite knowledge which
gives the force to the Spiritistic hypothesis.

As for telepathy and clairvoyance, we must suppose that these supply
the necessary data ; the knowledge gained by some supernormal means,
which supply the personality with the requisite personal memories and
recollections, and give to the sitter the general impression that he is in
very truth in communication with his deceased friend or relative. Of
these two, clairvoyance — as we understand it — has operated on but rare
occasions. There were some traces of it in the old Phinuit rigime, but
most of these were in the form of experiments, and there are but very
faint traces of this faculty operating in recent sittings. We are forced,
therefore, to accept telepathy as our explanation until we succeed in
obtaining a better one. But the theory of telepathy has been answered
by both Dr. Hodgson and Professor Hyslop with " arguments of con-
siderable force," and personally, I do not consider it sufficient to account
for the facts recorded, if taken alone. Professor Hyslop's arguments appear
to me to be almost convincing on this point. We are left, therefore, to
account for the facts as best we may, or to fall back upon the old and
much despised theory of Spiritism. Most assuredly this covers all the
facts in the case, and it is a hypothesis which we may be forced to accept
some day ; but for the present let us stand it to one side, to be
registered by the world at large as " not proven." (Proof, by the way,
in this case, must rest entirely on comparative probabilities, and so will be
judged differently by various persons, according to their subjective
mental attitude in these questions.)

To revert now to the hypotheses, I contend that no one hypothesis will
explain all the facts in the Piper records, and on this point I believe
that the majority of those who read the Proceedings will agree with me.
But will a combination of these hypotheses suffice ? I certainly believe
that, with more or less straining, it will. This very point is, it appears
to me, deliberately skipped by Professor Hyslop in his carefully drawn
up Report We find (Vol. xvi. p. 124), the following sentence —

" I leave to the ingenuity of a priori speculation the combination of
assumptions necessary to meet the simple hypothesis which I have
preferred to defend as satisfactory for the present. Hence, with the
refusal to consider these, telepathy is the only real or apparent difficulty
in its connection with secondary personality that I shall consider."

Why should Professor Hyslop refuse to consider these ? I venture to

§ 3. The possibility of combining these hypotheses.

lv.] Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper. 341

hink that it is precisely this combination of objections which is likely
o occur to the average person who believes fraud to be eliminated in
his case. That, to me, seems a very weak point.

.Now if we go back in our review of the Piper phenomena, I believe
hat few persons would care to stake their belief in a future life on any
svidence published prior to Dr. Hodgson's Report in Proceedings, Vol.
till. Sir Oliver Lodge (Vol. vi., p. 647), classified some 41 instances
which he considered as "especially difficult to explain by direct
thought-transference," but Mr. Lang claims to have "explained" all
these more or less satisfactorily, except the "snake skin incident."1
Vol. VIII. (Proceedings) certainly contains no evidence sufficiently strong
for us to found such a belief upon ; and indeed such was the conclusion
of Dr. Hodgson himself (p. 57). In Proceedings, Vol. xiii., outside of
the G.P. notes, there seems to be — indeed stronger evidence than
previously, but hardly enough upon which to base the belief in a future
life. The Reports in Vol. xiv. are exceedingly dubious, owing largely
to the extraordinary confusion prevailing throughout. If, therefore,
some person, candid, open-minded, but ignorant of this Society's work,
were to ask what scientific evidence there was for a belief in the
immortality, or at least the survival of the soul, and we should refer
him to the G.P. notes and to Professor Hyslop's Report, the question
is — would thai be sufficient % I venture to think that it would not. Of
course the case is different with Dr. Hodgson. He has seen, he tells us,
many private and personal passages written out by the entranced Mrs.
Piper which we have not seen ; they, unfortunately, being too personal
and too private to be published ! Also Dr. Hodgson has had the
advantage of personal observation ; of watching the symptoms of the
trance, the dramatic play of personality and many other of these
interesting manifestations which we can not witness. Naturally this
personal scrutiny carries far more weight to the mind of an observer
than would hundreds of printed pages to the same individual ; and that
this personal and prolonged investigation does tend to convince is
obvious from the position taken by both Dr. Hodgson and Professor
Hyslop. However, the majority of the human race cannot enjoy these
privileges, and, while they should be allowed for, no one can convince
others except on the actual testimony itself ; and it is consequently from
the printed pages that we must argue the point.

§ 4. The value of the previous evidence estimated.

18ee Proceedings S.P.R., Vol. xv., t
Z

342

Hereward Carrvngtan.

[part

§ 5. The Piper phenomena are more spontaneous than expermetial ia

their character.

Now, in attacking the position taken by Professor Hyslop, I mast
differ from him in one of the first and most crucial points in the whok
case. On p. 142 (Proceedings, Vol. xvi.), we find the following
sentence :

" The Piper phenomena are experiments, complete in themsehe*, and
are not spontaneous occurrences."

Here is where I entirely differ from Professor Hyslop, or I have
mistaken the meaning of the word " experiment. " Spontaneous
phenomena are exactly what they are, it appears to me. An inveiti-
gator " sits " with Mrs. Piper and calmly waits for whatever messages
may come through her hand. The conversation is invariably opened
by some " control " ; each new subject is broached by him ; (if by the
sitter as a " test," it very seldom succeeds) ; and the knowledge is offered
or written out quite spontaneously, to be either recognized or disclaimed
by the sitter. In experimental thought-transference, on the other
hand, the agent (presumably the sitter) has some definite idea in hi*
mind which he endeavours to impress upon that of the percipient (here,
— medium). It is in his supraliminal consciousness, and no account i§
taken of anything which may happen to be passing through his
subliminal consciousness. Thus : the figure 64 may be in the agent s
(supraliminal) mind. — The percipient says 37. — " Wrong ! n — How do
we know that 37 was not in the subliminal consciousness of the agent 1
We cannot. Obviously experimental thought-transference must take
place between the supraliminal consciousness of one person and the »*'
stratum of consciousness in the mind of the other. Were this not so,
there would be no experiment about it. Sir Oliver Lodge's argument is
to distant telepathy, that " it ought to be constantly borne in mind that
this kind of thought-transference, without consciously active agency,
has never been experimentally proved," (Vol. VI., p. 453), is answered
by Mr. Lang in a somewhat telling question — u How can you experi-
ment consciously on the unconscious ? " (Vol. xv., p. 48). Hence it i*
no argument against telepathy to say that such and such a fact was not
in my mind (supraliminal consciousness) at the time, — rather the
reverse. Consequently, in the Piper case, I must profess to differ
absolutely from Professor Hyslop in his statement that these are
experiments ; it seems to me that that is precisely what they are not.

Digitized by

xlv.] Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper. 343

§ 6. The possibility of unconscious telepathy.

Granting then that the knowledge gained by Mrs. Piper is abstracted
from our subliminal consciousness, we have no direct proof that this
latter may not be thinking of anything, — some incident entirely distinct
from that upon which our supraliminal is engrossed. On the other
hand, we have very good evidence to show that such is frequently the
case. " Miss X " remarked that — " it ought by this time to have passed
into an axiom that it by no means follows that what is at the top of our
minds will be likely to tumble out first " (Essays in Psychical Research,
p. 117-18). Similarly Dr. Hodgson assures us that — "on March 18th,
1895, . . . her deceased sister wrote with one hand, and G.P. with the
other, while Phinuit was talking, all simultaneously on different
subjects * (Proceedings S.P.R., Vol. xni., p. 294). For further proof of
this see Mr. Myers* articles on "Automatic Writing," Mr. Gurney's
experiments in hypnotism, etc.

The point I am trying to emphasise is this : — that the great majority
of the bare fads in the sittings could have been obtained by the medium
by means of telepathy from the subliminal consciousness of the sitter ; —
though the latter^ " supraliminal " might have been busy with other
thoughts at the time, and expecting something entirely different.
That is no proof that telepathy was not in operation between the
medium and the sitter's subconsciousness.

But what of the facts that are not known to the sitter and have to be
verified afterwards ? Of these many are wrong, others are unevidential,
and still others are un verifiable, whereas the residuum may be explained,
perhaps, by means of the latent memory of news subconsciously heard,
or by telepathy from the living person himself. On examination it will
be found that very few facts fail to come under this head; and
surrounded as they are by more or less irrelevant talk and suggestive
remarks, they may very possibly be the result of simple chance. Such
a theory is, I know, somewhat exasperating to those who are convinced
of the genuineness of the phenomena ; but the following extract bears
out my view precisely, and will be appreciated by all those Psychical
Researchers who have had some phenomenon explained in a perfectly
normal manner, but upon which they were willing to stake their
existence as being supernormal in character. Lord Lytton remarked
that . . . "thus it is whenever the mind begins, unconsciously, to
admit the shadow of the supernatural ; the obvious is lost to the eye
that plunges its gaze into the obscure " ( Strange Story 9 II., p. 13).

It will be observed, however, that I here limit myself only to facts, —

344

Hereward Carrington.

[PAKT

the actual knowledge shown by the medium in the trance state, — and I
do not attempt to weave those facts together so as to form a personality.
On that subject I shall have a theory to offer presently. But for the
moment I only wish to emphasise the point that all the actual fads
(with very few exceptions) obtained and written out in these sittings
might have been drawn from one person's mind, — his subliminal
consciousness, — and, when Dr. Hodgson was holding his sittings for
Professor Hyslop, the knowledge displayed would yet be explainable on
this hypothesis, if space is no obstacle to telepathy, and the facts might
still be explained in this way, though they might be somewhat less
distinct and consecutive, and, indeed, this proves to be the case.

§ 7. The strong and the weak points of the Spiritistic hypothesis.

Turning, now, to the Spiritistic hypothesis, it must be admitted that
there are many facts that point to this explanation as the true one-
For instance, the extremely rapid interplay of personality is, so far as
my own knowledge goes, unparalleled in the history of this subject;
personalities, moreover, which differ so radically from each other in
character, knowledge and general characteristics. Again, the intimate
character of some of the messages conveyed, apparently, the almost
irresistible conviction that the sitter was indeed conversing with his
deceased relative. But it is the combination of all these wonderful
characteristics which conveys to the sitter the impression of the reality
of this independent personality. As Dr. Hodgson has so well expressed
it (Proceedings S.P.R, Vol. XIII., p. 360) :

" It is not this or that isolated piece of knowledge merely, not merely
this or that supernormal perception of an event occurring elsewhere,
not merely this or that subtle emotional appreciation for a distant
living friend, — but the union of all these in a coherent personal plan
with responsive intellect and character, that suggests the specific
identity once known to us in a body incarnate."

All this is well known and recognized, but there are, on the other
hand, many apparently irreconcilable points to be considered in
connection with this view of the case under consideration. Granting
that the confusion displayed in the automatic script may be accounted
for on the spiritistic hypothesis as readily as, or more readily than, on
the telepathic, there yet remain many extraordinary statements on the
part of the communicators which certainly point to sheer ignorance, on
subjects well known to them alive, rather than to any flaw in the actual
transmission. Thus we have the remarkable utterances of Hector,

xlv.] Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper. 345

Imperator, etc., quoted by Mrs. Sidgwick in her "Discussion"
(Proceedings, Vol. xv., p. 32). Mr. W. S. Moses, again, does not know
the names of his own "controls" (Vol. xiv., pp. 38, 40 and 41);
similarly G.P. does not remember (?) his Greek (Vol. xv., p. 42).

All this, of course, arouses one's suspicions, and makes us accept with
extreme caution any statement coming from this source. As a further
example of this point we have the apparently ludicrous statements as to
the occupation in the life to come. As Professor Hyslop remarks:
" Living in houses, listening to lectures are rather funny reproductions
of a material existence" (Proceedings S.P.R., Vol. XVI., p. 259).
Indeed one would think so ! To reconcile these statements, Professor
Hyslop has to resort to the supposition that they are "merely auto-
matisms," and other purely arbitrary suppositions. For this there
seems to be but little authority, and as the statements are made with
apparently the same assurance as the remainder of those set forth, one
can but wonder whether these utterances aro not due in origin to one
initial source, and that source assuredly not " spirits."

The same objections may be brought to bear upon the mistakes and
contradictions in the messages. These have been mentioned briefly in
the above paragraph, and whereas it may be admitted that partial
mistakes and incoherences are in favour of the spiritistic hypothesis,
what are we to say to the absolute ignorance shown, the contradictions,
and grossly false information given by Mrs. Piper's " controls," or the
communicators themselves? These points, together with the fishing,
shuffling, and tentative questions (more frequent in the Phinuit days
than now), strongly point to Mrs. Pipers secondary personality as the
origin of the entire phenomena.

One of the strongest objections, however, to the spiritistic hypothesis
is (in the present writer's opinion), what he has chosen to term " the
evolution of Phinuit." Now this gentleman — who, we are thankful to
say, no longer manifests in Mrs. Piper's trances — was almost universally
considered to be a secondary personality, and although he might,
(perhaps), have been what he claimed, i.e. a spirit, the facts were so
overwhelmingly opposed to it and there is so little evidence for his
existence that the assumption of his spiritual nature (!) is, to say the
least, obviously gratuitous. His inability to speak French— though a
Frenchman; his ignorance of medicine — though a doctor; and his
utter failure to prove his identity, or even to know his own name

§ 8. Phinuit a secondary personality.

346

Hereward Cari*ington.

[pakt

(see Vol. VIII., p. 53), all are contrary to the claims of Spiritism. But
it is unnecessary to dwell on this point longer. Phinuit is, I believe,
generally acknowledged to be a secondary personality of Mrs. Piper ;
but the argument of some spiritists is that even granting this, know-
ledge was frequently displayed by "spirits" independently of his
control, and which prima facie bore distinct marks of the communicator's
identity ; not to speak of those who have communicated since Phinuit's
disappearance. To this argument I reply that Phinuit was one of Mrs.
Piper's first " controls"; that he announced to the world at large his own
spirit existence as confidently as did the best communicators, and that
it was through him that almost all the alleged spirits conversed with the
sitters, in the early days. Professor Hyslop's ingenious theory of the
secondary personality being a kind of borderland or " neutral ground," if
I may so express it, between the living and the dead would explain
this last point, however. But the fact remains that one of Mrs. Piper's
first " controls " was no spirit at all, but merely a secondary personality !
How is it possible, then, for us to discriminate between Phinuit and,
let us say, Rector or Imperator — neither of whom has ever proved his
identity satisfactorily ? If one is a secondary personality of Mrs. Piper,
why not all ? — for Phinuit's u dramatic play " was certainly equal to
anything that either Imperator or Rector supplies us with, if not better.

In those days the evidence presented facts which tended to show the
influence of living minds as well as those of the dead, but thought-
transference from the living seemed to be gradually eliminated, and the
evidence to point more and more strongly to the action of disembodied
spirits alone. Now this would be perfectly rational on either hypo-
thesis. On the Spiritistic, it would represent the gradual improvement
of the "machine "; a "clearing the decks," so to speak, of all useless and
unnecessary encumbrances, and affording greater facility for direct spirit
intervention. On the telepathic theory, on the other hand, this
"clearance" would probably represent the gradual formation of the
faculty for combining suggestions and telepathic ideas into a separate
personality. Of course this is a very provisional theory, and the
spiritistic explanation has still many points in its favour. But because
spiritism is the easiest explanation (at present), are we justified in
accepting it without further attempts to explain these phenomena
otherwise ] Most assuredly no ! If this had been the policy of the
S.P.R from its foundation, we should never have reached many of the
important truths which it has now firmly established, and many facts
would still have passed for "supernatural" amongst the majority,
which are now accepted more or less as a matter of course, simply on

Digitized by

xlv.] Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper. 347

account of the reasonable basis upon which these facts rest, and are
explained; (e.g. automatic writing).

For example, nearly the whole range of " psychical research " could
be explained by that one word — spirits — if accepted ; yet many would
analyse these phenomena very differently ! Thus : all the " physical
phenomena" of Spiritism and "Poltergeists" would be explained as
either fraud, hallucination or telekinesis: all clairvoyance, prevision,
and precognition as the result of chance, illusions, and hallucinations of
memory, and (in the first of these at any rate), as imposture very
frequently : all apparitions of the living and dead as either subjective
or telepathic hallucinations; all haunted houses as a combination of
fraud, illusion, hallucination, expectancy, suggestion, and, perhaps,
telepathy from the living or "some subtle physical influence," — in
addition to normal sounds and noises greatly magnified ; aye, even
thought-transference itself might be a form of "brain-waves" or "ether-
vibrations," granting that it is accepted at all ! Such an analysis is,
very probably, repugnant to many minds, especially to those who have
become more or less convinced of the reality of a " life beyond death,"
and, whereas I do not altogether believe in the strict analysis just
given, still, when once a belief in the supernormal begins to operate,
the " common-sense " side of the question is frequently ignored — as
somewhat repugnant to the feelings of those concerned. But I will
again quote from that clear-brained, level-headed thinker, Lord Lytton,
where he says (Strange Story, Vol. II., p. 284) :

" The moment one deals with things beyond our comprehension, and
in which our own senses are appealed to and baffled, we revolt from the
Probable, as it appears to the senses of those who have not experienced
what we have."

What a truism !

§ 10. The possibility of over-estimating the value of the evidence.

The object of the previous remarks is to pave the way for a few of
somewhat similar type applied to the problem of the Piper trance,
phenomena. Mrs. Sidgwick thinks that the "evidence for direct
communication . . . may easily be over-estimated" (Proceedings S.P.R.,
Vol. XV., p. 21). At the time that this was written, the present writer
was less inclined to accept that statement as true than he is now, after
having seen that Professor Hyslop unknowingly colours — highly colours

§ 9. An Analysis of " Psychical Research:

348

Hereward Carrington.

[past

— many incidents which, looked at from another standpoint, fall within
the range of a perfectly normal explanation.

Thus : — Professor Hyslop makes much of the fact that Mr. Carrathers
— one of the "communicators" — does not recognize Dr. Hodgson, while
the latter is " sitting " on his behalf, and during his absence (Proceedmgt
S.P.R., Vol. XVI., p. 194). Now this is of frequent occurrence in cases
of secondary personality, when, in the abnormal condition, the subject
does not recognize former friends and acquaintances, or even his own
wife and family (see Proceedings S.P.R., Vol v., p. 391 ; Vol. vn., pp.
249, 256, 257, etc.). If multiplex personality be assumed in this case,
the non-recognition of Dr. Hodgson is certainly what would be expected.
Again, the lack of clearness in the communications of suicides 1 may be
due to unconscious suggestion, perhaps telepathically conveyed. More-
over, so far as the published notes go, they are surely insufficient to
establish anything with certainty ; the element of chance being too
great

§11. Some advantages of the " secondary personality " hypothesis.

On the whole, therefore, there are many points in favour of the
" secondary personality " hypothesis ; and, apart from the supernormal
knowledge displayed, and the dextrous interweaving of the facts gained
into a distinct personality, the only rational argument against this
theory is that the personalities displayed in the Piper case are so
infinitely superior in style, graphic exposition of character, and dramatic
play of personality to all other known cases of a similar character, that
we are, some say, almost entitled to doubt whether or not they belong
even to the same genus. This supposition appears to me absolutely
unwarrantable. It must be remembered that the difference displayed
is purely one of degree, not of kind ; the superiority consists simply in i
greater isolation of the different personalities, and in their far more
rapid interplay than is generally the case. Just why this great
superiority should exist is indeed a most puzzling problem ; and the
only theory that seems at all tenable is that under the vastly greater
opportunities for improvement which Mrs. Piper has enjoyed, over
other mediums, the " conditions " have so benefited her that she has
developed into a stronger medium; meaning by tins — on the hypo-
thesis proposed below — that Mrs. Piper's brain has greatly developed
the capacity for combining the numerous suggestions and telepathic
impulses conveyed from the sitter's mind ; that these personalities are
'See Proceedings S.P.R., VoL xra., p. 376.

xlv.] Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper. 349

composed, as Professor Newbold suggests, by the " weaving together by
Mrs. Piper's nervous mechanism of all the complex suggestions of the
stance room, supplemented by telepathic and clairvoyant impressions
got in connection with the sitter and with the articles which he brings "
(Proceedings S.P.E., Vol. xiv., p. 9).

In the above argument, it will be understood, I did not take into
account the supernormal knowledge displayed, but merely the unity of
consciousness and individual personality represented. That Mrs. Piper
should be so far superior to all other mediums on this point may to
some appear a strong argument for the spiritistic hypothesis ; but when
one considers the years spent in the careful training of this faculty,
under the constant observation of Dr. Hodgson, it appears equally
plausible on the telepathic. And if we are challenged to produce
another Mrs. Piper for the purpose of proving the theory above
advanced, we reply that two such cases would be just as puzzling and
inexplicable as one, — as either the spiritistic or the telepathic hypothesis
might be again applied to the solution with precisely the same result as
occurred in the first case — viz., a continued diversity of opinion, each
party claiming that the second case proved their theory ! If the tele-
pathic hypothesis is a strain upon our credulity, so, taking everything
into account, is also the spiritistic.

§12. Comparison of the Piper personalities with other known cases of a

similar type.

Now one of Professor Hyslop's greatest objections to the "secondary
personality " hypothesis is that, as a rule, the phenomena observed are
far more mechanical than is the case with Mrs. Piper's " controls." This
is undoubtedly the case, and, standing alone, this is a very strong card
in the spiritist's hand. Personally, I know of no other case even
approximately similar to the marvellous " interplay of personality with
reciprocal exchange of ideas, as if real, that so characterises the Piper
case " (Proceedings, Vol. xvi., p. 279). My only reply to this is, firstly,
to again emphasize the fact that the difference is one of degree, and not
of kind ; and, secondly, that secondary personalities are not invariably
as mechanical as Professor Hyslop maintains. To quote one simple case
(that of Ansel Bourne), 1 need but remind the reader that his
secondary personality — personating A. J. Brown — was so completely
natural that not one of his many newly-acquired friends and
acquaintances ever detected anything uncommon or unusual in his
conduct during a period of several weeks (loc. at. Vol. vn., pp. 221-257).

Digitized by Google

350

Hereward Carrington.

[part

The case is not in any way analogous to the Piper phenomena, hat
merely illustrates the fact that secondary personalities are capable of
reproducing, in a perfectly natural manner, a distinct personality, which
is itself absolutely unknown to, and wholly different from, the original
supraliminal consciousness of the subject. Indeed this is recognised by
Professor Hyslop, for he says :

" The crucial test of Spiritism, in this and all other cases, must turn
upon the question of telepathy to furnish the data upon which any
secondary consciousness has to work. Until it is more fully studied,
we shall have to assume that secondary personality is equal to the task
of explaining the dramatic play of personality, and all non-evidential
data, and base our conclusion upon the insufficiency of telepathy to
supply the objective facts in evidence of personal identity " (Proceeding*
S.P.R., Vol. xvi., p. 292).

§ 13. Spiritism versus Telepathy and Secondary Personality combined.

We come, therefore, to the combination of telepathy and secondary
personality as an explanation of the phenomena under discussion.
This is admittedly the strongest antagonist which the spiritistic
hypothesis has to face, but it seems extremely doubtful whether it will
account for all the phenomena recorded, or no. Personally, I am
exceedingly doubtful as to its ability to do so. But if we reject every
hypothesis in turn, as insufficient to account for the accepted facts, we
shall be driven by sheer weight of evidence into an acceptance of the
spiritistic hypothesis. Possibly this may occur at some future date,
but for the present let us set that to one side, and, after examining
all the remaining hypotheses in turn, and finding them insufficient to
account satisfactorily for the phenomena observed, we must endeavour
to invent some hypothesis which will account for a greater proportion
of the facts than any hitherto advanced — or remain without any
hypothesis at all. This last state of mind is certainly anything but
satisfactory ; and it remains for us, therefore, to frame some theory
which will fulfil the requirements as nearly as possible.

Naturally each one of us looks at any evidence presented for oar
judgment in an entirely different light ; according to his outlook upon
the Universe, and his own subjective mental attitude towards th«e
subjects. Cousequently, each one of us has some more or less vague
theory as to the source from whence those writings proceed, and it is
upon my own hypothesis, graduallj' evolved from the repeated readings
of the Piper reports and script, that I beg to offer a few brief remarks;

Digitized by

xlv.] Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs, Piper. 351

not that I expect them to receive any acceptance, he it observed, hut
rather that they seem to afford at least a plausible alternative to the
spiritistic theory, without so much straining upon the alternative
hypotheses.

§14. Tracing the growth of a telepathically initiated secondary personality.

To build up this theory, step by step, I shall be obliged to go "as
far back" as hypnotism; meaning by this that, in the beginning at
least, we are working upon a (comparatively speaking) perfectly normal
and rational basis. The late Mr. Myers, then, maintained that almost
the only uniform phenomenon in the hypnotic trance was the
" formation of a secondary chain of memory," and claimed that
" hypnotism . . . may be regarded as constituting one special case
which falls under a far wider category, — the . category, namely, of
developments of a secondary personality" (Proceedings, Vol. v., p. 387).
Nor is it even necessary to revert to hetero-suggestion for the produc-
tion of this phenomenon ; it is possible to produce alteration of
personality by auto-suggestion alone ; — " I have seen a man cultivate
the power of automatic writing. Another learned to change his
personality, while the third would become somnambulic " (Hypnotism.
By J. R. Cocke, M.D., p. 304). In all these cases, a distinct per-
sonality (and without any verbal suggestion whatever, it will be observed)
is induced, together with the usual loss of memory on " coming-to."

To revert now to the published experiments in thought-transference.
Few psychical researchers will deny the existence of this supernormal
method of communication, I take it, or doubt that telepathy, from
however great a distance, is indeed a fact. Combining, now, the facts of
telepathic suggestion and hypnotic suggestion we come, by an easy
transition, to the phenomenon of telepathic hypnotism, which is---
according to the definition given above — the telepathic production of a
secondary personality.

This, therefore, brings us at least one step nearer an understanding
of the Piper "controls" than heretofore. We have found that
secondary, and perhaps multiplex, personality may be induced by
telepathy, each personality retaining its own chain of memories and its
individual identity ; yet generally lacking that supernormal knowledge
displayed by the communicators in the Piper case. The trance is very
probably closely allied to the hypnotic, yet is not precisely the same
(see Proceedings of the American S.P.R., p. 105), and the "controls"
would represent, on this hypothesis, telepathically produced secondary
personalities.

352

Eereioard Carrvngton.

[past

But it is the facts revealed by these personalities, rather than the
personalities themselves, — the supernormal knowledge displayed, mi
not simply the strong indications of an independent intelligence, — which
cause us to turn towards spiritism for an explanation. Indeed, were h
not for the pertinent remarks and proofs of " shared memory * giro,
we should have no cause for supposing that either " parapatby ~l or
telepathy had any share whatever in the formation of these person-
alities. But as the very "ground-work" of their identity, so to speak, is
composed of these very scraps of knowledge, we must assume that
"noopathy" enters into the case, both in the actual formation of the
personality, and in keeping it, when once formed, supplied with
pertinent facts.

§ 15. The "Difficulties'1 of the "Telepathic Hypothesis" simplified.

We now come, therefore, to the very heart of the problem — the 1
crucial point of the whole case. Granting that this personality is once
telepathically initiated, whence does it derive the continuous stream of
information written out in the trance state ; especially those facts not
within the sitter's memory or knowledge at the time ? The theory of
"discriminative telepathy," if I may so call it, has been met with
almost crushing arguments by Professor Uyslop, and were this the only
alternative to spiritism we should, I venture to think, be almost forced
into an acceptance of the latter theory. But I do not believe that oar
choice rests between these two hypotheses only. I contend that the
personality displayed through Mrs. Piper's automatic writing wis
obtained — not by telepathy between the medium's brain and distant
persons in this world, but by parapathy from the sitter's subliminal
consciousness : that it was extracted thence in toto ; identity, memory,
personal knowledge, and individual consciousness, just as displayed,
without resort to any source of knowledge further than the sitters
own subconsciousness, and was removed thence in one compact
mass, as it were, rather than that it was collected piecemeal from the
ends of the earth. (How this entered the sitter's subliminal consckws
ness I shall endeavour to show presently, § 19.) Of course this does
not mean that all the knowledge displayed in the trance condition,
through Mrs. Piper's hand, was obtained at one lime from the sitters
subliminal self, but that the facts themselves were all there, and
obtained from that one fount on different occasions, I do contend.

1For definitions of "parapathy" and "noopathy" see Professor Hyslops

Report *--note.

xlv.] Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper. 353

That facts which we were totally unconscious of ever having known
may be obtained by automatic writing is a well-known fact, and Mrs.
Piper seems to have been the automaton ; thus, instead of our sub-
liminal consciousness writing unknown facts through our own hands,
Mrs. Piper writes them for us, the latent knowledge being supplied by
parapathy from our own sub-consciousness.

Thus far nearly everything suggested has been said before in more
or less similar language, and it but remains for me briefly to
recapitulate, before passing on to this, our last and most crucial
problem, viz., the knowledge of facts apparently unknown to the sitter.
We have seen (i.) that our "spirits" may not be spirits at all, but
telepathically produced personalities, (ii.) That the requisite dramatic
play of personality and unity of consciousness would accompany the
secondary personality thus created, (iii.) That the unverified and
un verifiable facts in the sitting cannot be counted as evidential ; and
(iv.), that those verifiable facts already known to the sitter cannot be
proved to lie outside the limits of telepathy, if the facts were known,
at any time : (a) to the supraliminal, or (b) to the subliminal conscious-
ness of the sitter, or of any one within the immediate vicinity. If we
admit the above conclusions, and, — according to the rigorously scientific
elimination process, we should admit them, — then those who defend the
spiritistic hypothesis are forced to base their faith upon the facts which
were, to the best of the sitter's belief, wholly without his memory or con-
sciousness, and had never become known to him through the recognized
channels of sense. Of these, a portion may have been known to the
sitter and temporarily or permanently forgotten by him, while another
portion may have become known to him subliminally, but never have
risen above the threshold of consciousness — such as conversations heard
when asleep, etc. Of the remainder of the facts in these reports, it
would be a very nice question to settle as to how far chance may be
accountable for them. Amidst the confusion and excitement in most
of these sittings ; amidst the shuffling, stumbling, and "fishing " — (more
common under the Phinuit rigime than now, however) ; amidst the
many tentative remarks and absolute falsity of numerous positive
statements, it would be almost surprising if we did not find some true
incidents which would be applicable to any one particular case, either
to the sitter himself or to some relative or friend of his.

But it must be admitted that all this is purely speculative, and
perhaps unwarrantable. We must not strain our 4 4 perfectly natural "

§16. R&suml of the previous argument.

354

Hereward Carrington.

[PABT

solutions to the breaking point in too many places at once, or the chain
may become too weak to support the strain placed upon it. Both sides
of the question must be judged fairly, and without prejudice, and if it
is possible to arrive at any solution of these problems without reverting
to what Mr. Lang calls " animism, n it is clearly our duty to do so; but
we must not make ludicrous attempts at explanations which are both
unsupported by evidence, and prima facie extremely improbable ;—
" There is a point at which the explanations of common-sense arouse
scepticism " (Cock Lane and Common Sense, p. 60).

Conceding this point to the spiritistic side of the controversy,
therefore, I shall assume, for the sake of argument, that the facts
obtained by Professor Hyslop by means of Mrs. Piper's automatic
writing, were not known by normal means and forgotten by his supra-
liminal self, though lodged within his subliminal memory, and that
chance is insufficient to account for the successful statements made.
We are now face to face with the most — and only remaining — impor-
tant problem of all the Piper or analogous phenomena, viz., how is (aw
knowledge, unknown to the sitter, obtained t The hypothesis of " spirits "
and exclusive telepathy from widely scattered living persons bom
appear to me exceedingly improbable ; — the former for obvious reasons,
the latter because of the vast assumptions necessary and difficulties
encountered within the hypothesis itself. But if we reject both of
these theories (together with " the Absolute and the Devil ! "X we m
forced, it appears to me, into some such hypothesis as the following.

§ 1 7. The writer's theory for explaining these phenomena : Initial Remarks.

In the first place, I should suggest that many — perhaps all — of the
thoughts in the minds of those about us are constantly being " tele-
pathed," as it were, to the brains of others; that each individual
consciousness is the nucleus and radiating point of hundreds of such
telepathic messages, which, though constantly being received and
dispatched, are entirely carried on below the level of consciousness,
so that we never become cognizant of them except in some abnormal
condition, or under some extraordinary emotional influence ; when this
thought tends to merge into consciousness as an automatism (sensory
or motor). Occasionally one of these telepathic messages rises above
the level of consciousness in the form of a veridical dream or phantasm,
a crystal-vision, a warning voice, a restraining hand (hallucinatory);
or. again, in the numerous motor types of messages, such as automatic
and planchette writing, trance utterance, table-tipping, etc All this

Digitized by

xlv.] Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper. 355

has been discussed so fully by the late Mr. Myers, in his papers on
" The Subliminal Consciousness," that I need not have entered into the
problem at all were it not for the feet that whereas former writers
have regarded these telepathic messages as rare and sporadic, the
present theory suggests that they are of almost constant occurrence,
but very rarely merge into consciousness, save as an automatism, or
when the medium gets en rapport with our 44 subliminal," and so attains
the facts by unconscious telepathy.1

§ 18. Objections to the above theory and replies thereto.

The only serious objections to this hypothesis are (i) that if this
were actually the case, one's brain would be the recipient of vibrations,
not only from one's friends and relatives, but from every living being in
the universe; and (ii) that, even granting that the facts are telepathically
transmitted as suggested above, they would form an indescribable chaos
from which it would be almost impossible to select the right facts for
the person thought of; thus making the medium's telepathic powers
worse than useless : for, instead of an orderly array of thoughts, con-
nected with some particular individual, and classified, to a certain
extent, by some unknown association process, with his individuality,
the medium's subliminal consciousness would find itself groping vaguely
amidst a bewildering mass of evidential material, strewn helter-skelter
throughout the sitter's sub consciousness.

I shall answer the second of these charges first, thus " clearing the
ground," so to speak, for the reply to objection number one.

Now it must firstly be noticed that these mistakes frequently do
occur, — the right facts are given, but in relation to the wrong person.
This is precisely what we should expect on the above hypothesis, and
is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the spiritistic theory. Thus
Professor Hyslop says (in reference to a string of facts just given in his

1 Since writing the above, I find that Mr. Myers has advanced very much this
same view, from a slightly different standpoint. In PJtantatms oj the Living
{ VoL ii., p. 302), the following sentence occurs : " I conceive that, if telepathy
be a fact, something of diffused telepathic percolation is probably always taking
place. This at least is what the analogy of the limitless and continuous action
of physical forces would suggest. . . . And similarly it is not unreasonable to
suppose that the same telergy, which is directed in a moment of crisis towards a
man's dearest friend, may be radiating from him always towards all other minds,
and chiefly towards the minds which have most in common with his own.'1 See
also From India to the Planet Mars, p. 387-8, where this point is just touched
upon*

356

Hereward Carrington.

[part

Report), — "In fact the whole passage is definitely applicable to my
brother Robert, and not to the others." (Proceedings Vol. xvl, pi 77).1
Much of the confusion in the Reports which was previously explained
as the rapid and unknown changes of the communicators may also be
due to this cause. The facts are more or less confused and ambiguous,
— sometimes applicable to the wrong person rather than to the right
one ; oftentimes applicable to almost any one at all. But I shall not
dwell too much upon this point, for, though many mistakes are com-
mitted and considerable confusion sometimes apparent, the result,
generally speaking, is that the incident in question is usually connected
with the right person. We are left, therefore, to speculate as to the
force or energy at work which would separate these telepathic ideas
from different minds into the fully rounded-out personalities, and
combine these thoughts into more or less complete individualities.

There are, of course, two conceivable methods by which this result
might be obtained, (i.) The facts may be associated with that
individual, and classified, as they enter our brain, — thus forming part of
a group of facts (telepathically obtained), which in themselves form
that individuality by means of some association process ; — or (ii) that
the facts are in reality in a very confused condition, but are singled
out, as in some way distinctive, by the medium, and combined by her
subliminal self into a separate individuality, in the very process vf
abstraction.

It would be necessary to assume in this case that the fragmentary
knowledge gained is in some way distinctive ; each thought or memory
being "labelled," so to speak, and applicable to that one person solely.
This may indeed be the case to a certain extent, for even when our
supraliminal consciousness hears the name of some well known friend,
it is at once associated with a host of memories and recollections con-
cerning that individual ; and we may surely suppose that the subliminal
self, with its far wider range of possibilities, and highly developed
mechanism of susceptibility and suggestion, may discriminate between
the thoughts of one person and those of another.

1 See also the following statements in the last part of Proceeding* issued (jcltt).
On page 195 (Vol. xvn. ) Mrs. Verrall says : " But I have no doubt that a certain
number of statements classed as incorrect or unverifiable are as a fact statements
wholly irrelevant to their context and belonging to some other series of oomtaoai
cations." Again (p. 136) Mr. Piddington wrote : 44 In face of this fresh evidence,
I think it cannot reasonably be doubted that the three statements . . . wrongly
given by Mrs. Thompson in trance in connection with Miss Clegg, owe their
origin to reminiscences of Mrs. Thompson's dead sister, Mrs. Turner, which
4 Nelly ' got hold of, but used in a wrong relation. " The italics are mine.

xlv.] Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper. 357

As to the first of these objections (that, on the hypothesis proposed,
one's brain would be the recipient of vibrations from every living
organism indiscriminately), the theory just advanced, as an answer to
objection (ii), would partially dispose of this objection also, and it only
remains for us to answer the natural inquiry — why should our friends
influence us more than other persons 1 If this constant telepathic
communication is a fact, why should some thoughts influence us more
than others, merely because they happen to belong to one's friend or
relative? Here is indeed a complex problem, and one which will
require all our ingenuity to solve, but, in place of any better forth-
coming explanation, I would suggest the following hypothesis, which,
bold venture as it is, yet seems to fulfil the requirements of the case
better than any other so far advanced.

§ 19. The writer's theory for explaining these phenomena : Continuation

of the theory.

It has frequently been observed that two persons, when constantly
in each other's society, tend, very frequently, to "grow alike," both
physically, in their modes of thought, and in their general mental and
moral " make-up." It is as though their minds had become adjusted to
one another's, so to speak ; that interchange of thought was becoming
both a more frequent phenomenon, and that the process of communica-
tion was being facilitated as the time progressed, and the two persons
in question came to know one another better, and to let their minds
run more and more in the same channels. Now by what process is this
mental telegraphy facilitated ? In other words, — if wo assume that
telepathic communication is a fact, and that it is, in such cases, appar-
ently developed, what is the actual mental process involved which
would facilitate its action?

In answer to this question, I would suggest that the two persons
here involved have had their mental receivers and transmitters gradually
adjusted to one another's ; so that, whereas at first only a few " divergent
rays " are received by us, as time progressed and our mental trans-
mitters and receivers began to be adjusted at the proper foci to the
other person's receivers and transmitters respectively, the process
becomes clearer and more frequent, and leads to almost constant sub-
conscious telepathic interaction between the two subliminal selves.

It will be seen then that, on this hypothesis, facts and personal
knowledge may be freely exchanged without the recipients being aware
of that fact either at the time or afterwards, unless it emerges into

Digitized by Google

358

Hereward Carrington.

[part

consciousness as an automatism, or is abstracted thence by the medium,
and given back to the sitter as a piece of entirely new information.
In fact, all knowledge apparently unknown to the sitter is merely
filtered through Mrs. Piper's brain, and, mingling with her "spirits" or
secondary personalities, is expressed through the medium's hand with
the invariably dramatic setting, thus conveying a strong impression
that the messages are in reality due in origin to the action of disem-
bodied spirits.

We here arrive, therefore, at a conclusion which, although it does
not disprove spiritism, nevertheless renders that hypothesis unnecessary.
For, if we can account for the knowledge displayed by the medium
which is, to the best of his belief, unknown to the sitter, then most
assuredly there is nothing else of such moment in the spiritistic
hypothesis, as to detain us from rejecting it as at least gratuitous.
For I claim that this apparently unknown knowledge may indeed be
known to the sitter, although he himself may be entirely unaware of
such knowledge, — it having been gained by unconscious telepathy from those
in constant association with him ; and that many facts undivulged may
still be within the safe keeping of his subliminal self, ready to be
evoked under certain conditions at present too little understood to be
extensively practised ; and this, it appears to me, might be the solution
of the Piper and all kindred phenomena.

In conclusion be it said that I do not intend this to be more than a
tentative hypothesis, and that I am in no way fighting or opposed
to the philosophy of spiritualism. Realizing, as I do, the tremendous
importance of the question being definitely decided either for
or against this belief, and the revulsion of feeling which must
necessarily follow in the wake of any such thing as a "scientific demon-
stration of a future life," it appears to me that, before accepting it, we
should strain every conceivable hypothesis to its utmost before "letting
down the bars " before the proof of immortality. To the spiritist, this
attitude must seem to denote an extraordinary frame of mind; it is
hard for him to appreciate the tremendous impediments and extreme
difficulty any one of a materialistic temperament experiences in attempt-
ing even to conceive any form of a " future life " whatever. But this
is a matter of personal opinion from an "outsider's" point of view.
What one's opinion would be were one in the place of Dr. Hodgson or
Professor Hyslop, it is impossible to say, but for mankind in general, bas-

§ 20. Conclusion.

XJL.V.] Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper. 359

ing their whole belief on the printed pages of our Proceedings, it would
seem that this absolute proof is still wanting, and that the majority of
us are still inclined to murmur with old Omar :

" Strange, is it not? that of the myriads who
Before us pass'd the door of darkness through,

Not one returns to tell us of the road
Which to discover we roust travel too ! "

Digitized by

360

Professor J. H. Hyslop.

[part

REMARKS ON MR. CARRINGTON'S PAPER.
By Professor J. H. Hyslop.

The spirit of Mr. Carrington's paper, which is sympathetic, makes it
unnecessary to waste my time in getting at the issue involved, and
hence I shall simply take up each section in its order and make such
comments on points concerned as the nature of the question requires.

I shall premise my remarks, however, with an important considera-
tion which I mean to keep in view in all my comments. There are two
questions in the problem of psychical research in so far as it has to do
with the spiritistic hypothesis. The first is the question of explanation ;
the second is the question of evidence. Both demands must be satisfied
in any hypothesis put forward, whether it is spiritistic or not The
theory must actually explain, and it must have evidence in its support
If the hypothesis presents only one of these requirements, it is defective,
and science cannot entertain it, even though it happen to be true
outside of our knowledge. Science forms its convictions not on mere
possibilities, but on knowledge — the knowledge that the theory explains
and that it has evidence. This criterion will be applied throughout
my remarks. I shall use now one and now the other aspect of it as
occasion demands.

(1) Mr. Carrington misunderstands the whole case when he says that
it is an a priori objection to the probability of the spiritistic theory
" that only one medium should have supplied us with sufficiently strong
evidence of * spirit return 1 to make that hypothesis the most probable
one." The reason for making so much out of the Piper case is not that
it is so unique, but that we have in it both quantity and quality of
material to justify the discussion of the hypothesis in all its complexity.
Mrs. Piper is not the only medium from which such phenomena have
been obtained. There have been plenty of them in history representing
phenomena similar in character so far as simple supernormal quality is
concerned. But they have not been the subject of prolonged scientific

Digitized by

XLV.]

Remarks on Mr. Carrington's Paper.

361

experiment and inquiry. It is the latter fact, and this fact alone, that
is the reason for putting emphasis on the Piper case. It is the only
one that justifies the scientific man in saying that he has sufficient
evidence in it to make out a case which will explain other less evidential
instances as well. The spiritistic theory does not depend wholly on
the Piper case, but only for its consistency in a large mass of facts and
its exceptionally scientific character.

(2) I have nothing to say regarding section 2, except to indicate
the reservation which I make in regard to the actual explanatory
powers of telepathy and clairvoyance. I make bold to assert that
they explain absolutely nothing, not even non-spiritistic phenomena of a
supernormal character. They are simply evidential criteria; that is,
owing to the possibility of such facts as they denominate, we simply
find it more difficult to get the required evidence for a spiritistic theory.
Cf. Journal S.P.R., Vol. X., pp. 214-215; also my report, Proceedings
Vol. xvi., pp. 294, and 127 footnote. One of the most amusing things
to me in the whole history of psychical research is the tendency of its
members to appeal to telepathy as explaining both spiritistic and
other phenomena after it has been carefully defined as merely a name
for phenomena still to be explained. The term was adopted to describe
mental coincidences which are not due to chance and which have some
causal nexus, but it is not a name for the cause, and hence cannot be
used to explain anything. As an explanatory principle, it represents
simply the unknown, and all explanation must appeal to a known principle,
not necessarily a fact known at the time. I took special pains to indicate
this briefly in my report (p. 294), where I showed that human conscious-
ness was a known principle, and was only extended in supposing its
continuance. It is thus capable of explaining the same kind of facts
that it explained in actual life. Telepathy and clairvoyance explain
nothing. They are simply names for facts, if facts, still to be explained.
(Cf. Proceedings, Vol. xvii., pp. 248-9 and 261 : Journal S.P.R, Vol. x., p.
214). Hence I deny at the very outset the fundamental assumption of
my critics, and maintain that the spiritistic hypothesis has a fulcrum
of some importance in supporting itself. If it is to be set aside, we
must prove the explanatory powers of the alternatives employed, and
not gratuitously assume that we are explaining a phenomenon by call-
ing it a mysterious name.

(3) Mr. Carrington's quotation from my report misses the point.
I was simply rejecting the combination of theories on the scientific
principle that a theory which does not apply in the main features of
its nature to the whole mass of phenomena is not applicable at all.

362

Professor J. H. Hydop.

[part

The Ptolemaic theory of astronomy explained the solar system as fully
as the Copernican system, but not as simply. The combination of
"cycles and epicycles" covered the field well enough, bat the com-
bination was both unnecessary and too complex to satisfy the proper
method of science, which is that a theory must be simple and have no
adjuncts which are necessitated merely by its own inadequacy. The
adjuncts must be known or proved facts naturally fitted to the theory.
The combination of Mr. Garrington has no unity, and is merely
arbitrary. The spiritistic theory gives unity to a far larger mass of
facts than any of the other hypotheses enumerated by Mr. Carrington,
and which he rejects as insufficient when taken alone to account for the
results. The adjuncts which are attached to the spiritistic theory are
drawn from normal and abnormal psychology, and represent known
facts in living human experience, so that in drawing our explanatory
general principle from a known human consciousness and our adjuncts
from accepted psychology, we cover the field by a simple theory, and
must reject the combination which Mr. Carrington mentions for the
same reason that the Ptolemaic astronomy was rejected in favour of
the Copernican.

(4) In section 5, Mr. Carrington disputes my contention that the
Piper phenomena are experiments and not spontaneous occurrences.
There is a very decided misunderstanding here of the passage which
he quotes from me, and which he disputes. I drew the distinction
between the " experimental " and "spontaneous" to contrast the Piper
phenomena with those of apparitions. We can exercise no influence
on the occurrence of apparitions, but we can at least choose the
time for the Piper phenomena and ask questions during the sittings.
These facts give the case the general nature of an experiment. The
spontaneity involved in the phenomena occurs, we may say, only
when the "communications" are allowed to take their own course.
This is for the evidential purpose of excluding both suggestion and
guessing. But asking questions completely destroys the spontaneous
nature of the phenomena precisely as questions in the experiments]
work of psychology assume the problems of the laboratory to be
experimental. Besides, in any conception of the term, the Piper case
is experimental in comparison with those phenomena which the Society
has classified as spontaneous. That is what I had in view in my
distinction, and it holds good at least to the extent of showing that
we have a far more valuable set of phenomena in the Piper results
than can ever be obtained by recording casual and spontaneous
experiences. In every essential feature the Piper sittings are experi-

XLV.]

Remarks on Mr. Carrington s Pauper.

363

ments of precisely the same sort as are the experiments with subjects
in the work of experimental psychology.

Let me also differ from Mr. Carrington regarding the cogency of
Mr. Lang's question as an argument against the statement of Sir Oliver
Lodge. You can answer Sir Oliver Lodge only by experimentally
proving the kind of telepathy which he says, I think correctly, has
not been proved. Mr. Lang's sceptical question, implying that we
cannot "experiment consciously on the unconscious/' is not in any
respect a proof that telepathy is subliminal. It would rather show
that it is both unproved and unprovable.

(5) Section 6 maintains " the possibility of unconscious telepathy."
I do not dispute this. What I want to know is : " Is it a fact ? " not
" Is it possible? " What Sir Oliver Lodge maintained, and I agree with
him, is that this kind of telepathy has never been experimentally proved,
and until it has been so proved, we are not obliged to consider it as a
scientific hypothesis for either explanatory or controversial purposes.
The "possibility" of it may serve as an evidential limitation in the
question of demonstration, but will not be a consideration in inductive
problems. The claim here by Mr. Carrington that " the great majority
of the bare facts in the sittings could have been obtained by the medium
by means of telepathy from the subliminal consciousness of the sitter/1
is subject to limitation of what has just been said. If that kind of
telepathy is scientifically proved, I can agree ; but I deny that it has
been scientifically proved. What people have been doing in this work
is extending the meaning of telepathy without producing the facts that
would justify it Not knowing its laws and conditions or limitations,
when confronted with an apparent spiritistic phenomenon, we ask:
" But what if telepathy can obtain its data from the subliminal ? " Then
by virtue of the right to ask the question on various occasions, we
presently surreptitiously assume it to be a fact. Presto ! and the whole
thing is done.

In his reference to the sittings held by Dr. Hodgson in my behalf,
Mr. Carrington neglects to note that many of the facts in those sittings
were quite as unknown to me as to Dr. Hodgson, and that we must
either extend the telepathy to other minds to account for them or
advance the hypothesis of previous subliminal acquisition telepathically
by myself. As Mr. Carrington treats of this latter theory further on, I
shall omit consideration of it at present, and only call attention to
the misconception of the facts of the record.

(6) In putting forward the dramatic play involved in the phenomena
as apparently the first matter in favour of the spiritistic theory, Mr.

364

Professor J. H. Hydop.

[pabt

Carrington reverses the order of cogency as stated by myself in my
report I make that fact purely secondary, and perhaps Mr. Carrington
would do so if asked regarding it. But I call attention to the matter
to emphasise the question of selectiveness in the phenomena as related
to the problem of personal identity as the really strong point for the
spiritistic theory first to be considered, and if telepathy cannot meet
that, it must take second place.

The " difficulties " which are mentioned as suggested by Mrs. Sidgwkk
in her discussion of Dr. Hodgson's report, I must dismiss, as they
do not seem to me of any scientific importance.

Mr. Carrington thinks that my suppositions to explain statements
regarding material existence, etc., are purely arbitrary. Now I was
careful to show that in two respects my explanation of such phenomena
simply reproduced the admitted facts of present knowledge. I indicated
as an ad hominem point that I had only to assume telepathy as the
normal mode of communication in a transcendental world, as it is
assumed to be a sporadic occurrence in this, and second, that the
prevailing idealism in philosophy would afford an analogy which
prevented all assumption of the supernormal to account for the
occurrence of such phenomena. Besides, Mr. Carrington neglects to
observe that it is not necessary for me to resort to these suppositions,
as I said they were not proved, and that the essential feature of the
theory maintained was that the " communicator " is in a mental
condition at least somewhat like our secondary personality (pp. 284-5)
while communicating. This again is a resort to present knowledge
and conceptions to explain the occurrence of such messages as he thinks
offensive to our ideas of what ought to occur. I cannot go into details
of this feature of the theory, but it explains how amnesia of both
the normal life in the transcendental world and the past terrestrial
life might occur, and in every way disturb the apperceptive powers for
rightly representing the conditions of spirit life. This enables the
spiritistic theory to explain what the telepathic theory cannot pretend
to explain, so that when you are reduced to a choice between them, the
former becomes preferable, whether proved or not.

The question of "mistakes, confusion, and contradictions1' is too
large to discuss in detail here. Each one of these would have to be
considered by itself. But I may briefly indicate that contradictions,
no matter how numerous, in regard to affairs on " the other side," do
not in the least affect the spiritistic theory, but only the reliability
of the controls for telling the facts about such a life. The spiritistic
hypothesis rests wholly upon facts that we can verify on " this side/

XLV.]

Remarks on Mr. Carrington s Paper.

365

and that are unquestionably supernormal and inexplicable by telepathy.
Contradictions about things terrestrial are a positive objection to
telepathy, because after assuming the powers which must be attributed
to it to explain away the spiritistic theory, there is no excuse for
contradiction. Besides, we have no right to suppose that discarnate
spirits know anything more about "this side" than we know about
theirs. They may have as much difficulty in finding out facts here
as we have in finding out about their affairs.

(7) The objection based on what Mr. Carrington calls (in §8) the
41 evolution of Phinuit" misconceives the whole problem, and shows
very clearly how assumptions made for evidential reasons become
supposed facts. After some animadversions on this point of
Phinuit's nature, Mr. Carrington says: "But the fact remains that
one of Mrs. Piper's first controls was no spirit at all, but merely
a secondary personality." Then he asks a question as to the
possibility of distinguishing between him and the present controls.
Now let me say in reply, first, that in my argument I assumed
that the Imperator group are also secondary personalities (pp. 153-
4, 264, 265-6, and 292). But assuming this for evidential purposes
is not admitting it to be a fact. As personal identity was the
standard, I had to test these trance personalities by the same criterion
as others, but their failure to indicate their identity is not proof that
they are Mrs. Piper's secondary personality, but merely a reason for
suspending judgment and conducting the argument on the concession
that they have not satisfied the conditions of evidence. The absence
of proof for the presence of spirits is not proof for the absence of spirits,
and yet the majority of writers and critics perpetually commit the error
of making the assumption which this statement denies. Hence we
must not forget that the assumption for argumentative purposes that
Phinuit was the secondary personality of Mrs. Piper is not equivalent
to the denial that he was in reality a spirit. For all that we know, he
was that, but the evidence did not prove it. Phinuit and the Imperator
group satisfy one term of the double standard which I mentioned near
the beginning of my remarks. They can be explained by the spiritistic
hypothesis, but they do not conform to the evidential criterion. Hence
argumentative^ we must assume them to be what they may not be in
fact, but we have no right to convert a logical expedient into evidence
that they are not what they claim to be. In all this I wish merely to
emphasise the truth — so easily disregarded — that failure to prove a
case is not evidence of the contrary view ; it simply leaves us in a
condition of agnosticism.

366

Professor J. H. Hyslop.

[past

(8) In section 10, Mr. Carrington misunderstands the purport of Mr*.
Sidgwick'8 statement that the " evidence for direct communication . . .
may easily be overestimated." In this Mrs. Sidgwick is disputing Dr.
Hodgson '8 possession theory, which concerns the modus operandi d
communication, and not the fact of it. Mrs. Sidgwick admits that
there is a considerable amount of evidence for spiritistic communication,
which seems to imply an admission of the cogency of incidents for the
spiritistic theory which Mr. Carrington here thinks are weakened by
my discussion. (Cf. Proceedings, Vol. XV. pp. 17-18.) But his miscon-
ception of her statement makes its quotation irrelevant to the point
which he wishes to make regarding an incident in my record connected
with the "communications" of my uncle. This was his failure to
recognize Dr. Hodgson, of which Mr. Carrington says I make so
much.

But Mr. Carrington misses my point in saying that secondary
personality in hypnosis and other forms shows precisely this failure to
recognise certain persons present This may all be very true. Bat
I was using the failure to recognize Dr. Hodgson as a difficulty in the
telepathic hypothesis. I was certainly not dealing with secondary
personality alone in the Piper case, but with a telepathic agent by
supposition. On this assumption I ought to have gotten a knowledge
of Dr. Hodgson's presence precisely as I did in the case of my father,
who had heard of Dr. Hodgson while living, but my uncle had not, as
I had never talked with him about the subject. The carious feature
of the Piper case is that the personalities who, when living, knew or
had heard of Dr. Hodgson, always or generally recognise him, while
those who never knew him do as my uncle did in this case. Why
should telepathy always duplicate the spiritistic phenomena and nothing
else? Besides, Mr. Carrington should note that Dr. Hodgson is
constantly recognized during the supposed secondary condition of Mrs.
Piper, so that it is not consistent that my uncle should fail to do this,
except on two assumptions : first, that I was dealing with a spirit, and,
second, that the telepathic powers of Mrs. Piper are limited to the
nature of the personality represented, or rather extended to the
coincidences between what is true of both the living and the dead and
apparently nothing else ! That was the point which I wished to make
so as to show how complicated telepathy might be, or had to be, to
account for the delicate psychological distinctions which it draws,
a distinction which its experimental form seems never to recognise.
The "multiplex personality/' which must be assumed in this case,
nt the multiplicity of the alleged " communicators," and

Digitized by

XL V.]

Remarks on Mr. Ccvrrington's Paper.

367

you would have to give some rational account of the consistency of the
Imperator group and their phenomena with the supposed elasticity and
cleavage assumed by Mr. Carrington, as well as the strange tendency
of the assumed personalities to coincide in their work with the demands
of a spiritistic hypothesis, showing psychological powers and distinctions
which now indicate no limitations, and now precisely those which we
should expect on the spiritistic theory.

(9) In regard to the combination of telepathy and secondary per-
sonality in the Piper case, Mr. Carrington must not ignore the fact that
I called attention to this possibility and remarked that, as the non-
evidential matter might all be referable to secondary personality, the
whole issue turned on the question whether telepathy could adequately
account for the acquisition of the supernormal facts. Having claimed
that telepathy could not rationally account for this acquisition, so far
as present evidence is concerned, and as the various controls can be
explained by the spiritistic hypothesis, it was not only consistent but
necessary to accept the hypothesis which was most consistent with all
the facts, and so treat it as preferable, that is, as a working hypothesis.
If you suppose that telepathy is all that Mr. Carrington assumes it to
be, then the case may be as strong against the spiritistic theory as he
supposes. But he should have remarked that my whole argument
threw upon him and similar critics the burden of proving the kind of
telepathy which he assumes, and which I do not admit for one moment
as either proved or as having the respectability of a working
hypothesis.

(10) What Mr. Carrington says in section 14 of a " telepathically
initiated secondary personality," is practically answered by my last
remarks above. When such a thing gets inductive or other evidence
in its support, I can reckon with it, but I am not, in an inductive
problem, under any obligations to refute mere possibilities. I simply
demand of every assumed possibility that it present evidence of its
being a fact, just as Mr. Carrington demands of the spiritistic theory,
not that it be possible — for this he apparently grants — but that it
have evidence.

Of course, Mr. Carrington is only stating in this way what is really
involved in the usual telepathic theory, so that, apart from the language,
we have only the old hypothesis to consider, and this is subject to the
criticism that the sitter cannot telepathically produce real personalities of
which it knows nothing, except we suppose that there is no personality
which he does not know, at least subliminally, all having been acquired
in the manner discussed in later sections. But, apart from this

368

Professor J, H. Hyslop.

[part

supposition, the limitation of telepathically initiated secondary per-
sonalities is found in facts not known by the sitter as we have been
accustomed to define "knowledge." Mr. Carrington must produce
the evidence that such assumptions are justifiable, not assert their
possibility, as we are not dealing in this problem with mere possibilities
but evidentially supported hypotheses.

(11) In section 15, Mr. Carrington speaks of " difficulties of the
telepathic hypothesis simplified," and then proceeds to maintain that
the sitter may have telepathically acquired at some time the facts that
are supposed to be entirely "unknown." It is amazing to see this
called " simplifying the telepathic theory ! " I have a very simple reply
to this contention. It is, Give us the evidence that any such thing
is a fact. I am not going to say that it is impossible. For all that
I know, this and many other things are quite possible. One other
writer says that " the ether fairly teems with the vibrating thoughts
of the bygone ages, and all (sic) that is necessary to become possessed
of this store of universal knowledge is to become sensitive to ether
vibrations and learn how to translate them into ordinary language."
Very possibly, so far as I know. But you would think that a man who
does not stumble at the acceptance of such a stupendous claim as this
without an iota of evidence, would not get excited about spirits which
claim to have some evidence in their support. Now Mr. Carrington
seems to imitate this man and does not produce any evidence that
the sitter is possessed of such subliminally acquired knowledge by
means of telepathy, and until he does, a scientific man is under no
obligation to discuss it in an inductive problem. Only when it
gives some evidence of being a fact in non-spiritistic data can we
discuss it as an objection to the spiritistic theory. Besides, it is
certainly strange that Mr. Carrington should demur to the accept-
ance of the spiritistic theory on the evidence of "one case" when
he is willing to tolerate a far more stupendous theory without
evidence of any sort. The Piper case may not be enough to pmt
the spiritistic theory, but it has to be explained by some theory,
and as the spiritistic hypothesis seems to have in it both the requisite
explanatory and evidential credentials, it is certainly legitimate to treat
it as a working hypothesis, and exact of every other competing doctrine
the satisfaction of the same demands. I must contend, on the very
nature of telepathy as a supposition, as well as the contradiction
between the magnitude and the necessary limitations of his theory *»
applied to the facts, that it does not explain anything, and Mr.
Carrington has given no evidence that his conception of it is a fact

XLV.]

Remarks on Mr. Carrington' 8 Paper.

369

in any case, so that neither credential of a legitimate scientific hypo-
thesis is embodied in his supposition.

In this theory Mr. Carrington has certainly followed the injunction
which he imposes upon sceptics in section 13, namely, that "we must
invent some hypothesis which will account for a greater proportion of
the facts than any hitherto advanced." Now what I dispute is the
right to " invent " any hypothesis whatever. Newtou was very careful
to say in regard to gravitation "hypotheses non Jingo" by which he
meant that he limited his suppositions to known principles, and simply
extended their operation with evidence. If we are to be allowed to
"invent" hypotheses ad libitvm without responsibility to evidential
considerations, I think I could produce several theories to rival the
spiritistic, some very simple and some very large. I have never
understood scientific method to permit this, and hence I simply ask
of every theory presented that it present the two fundamental creden-
tials of every legitimate hypothesis, namely, explanatory and evidential
capacity, and perhaps I should add, as an important corollary, applica-
bility to details. Mr. Carrington has not supplied any of these con-
ditions in his proposal. To support it, he should present something
like the experimental data which the Society's Proceedings record in
favour of telepathy, as limited to the present active states of conscious-
ness, and in favour of the spiritistic theory. There is not the slightest
attempt to do this, and until it is done, I am not called upon to
scientifically consider such statements as this : " I should suggest that
many, perhaps all, of the thoughts in the minds of those about us are
constantly being ' telepathed ' as it were to the brains of others," except
to say that they are assertion, not evidence.

(12) In Mr. Carrington's remarks on what we should expect from
his hypothesis in the way of mistakes and confusion, he actually departs
from the very principle with which he starts out in the discussion.
This was to accept the less stupendous theory. I shall not question
the liability to mistakes in the selection from so large a mass of
experience, including both supraliminal and subliminal knowledge,
except that if telepathy is half as large as Mr. Carrington and others
suppose, it ought not to make any such mistakes as are actually
committed. But if we can explain such mistakes by the normal laws
of consciousness, we do not have to resort to the supernormal at all.
Mr. Carrington takes an unverified hypothesis, and then to get out of a
difficulty which it presents, " invents " a weakness in it to simulate it
to the finite which is not in the original supposition. In the application
of the spiritistic hypothesis, I had proceeded upon the implications of

370

Professor J. U. Hyslop.

[part

personal identity, and assumed what must be true on that idea, namely,
that the subject, the discarnate soul, would show the strength and
weakness of consciousness as we know it, and so I explained the
mistakes and confusions by the various incidents of normal and abnor-
mal memory. That is, some mistakes can be explained by the ordinary
lapse of memory, others by the amnesia produced by the condition of
secondary personality in which the discarnate spirit is supposed, on the
internal evidence of the record, to be. I thus resort to the know* to
explain my case, and Mr. Carrington resorts to the unknown for his
explanation both in the conception of the hypothesis at large and in
the adjunct expressing its limitation. Besides, Mr. Carrington hat
stated as an objection to his theory a range of selectiveness that it must
imply, which I think every scientific man would regard as fatal to it
until experimentally proved, and this evidence is not here offered.

(13) The Ptolemaic character of Mr. Carrington's theory is shown in
the " cycles and epicycles " which he has to contrive to make it work.
He finds that it implies subliminal acquisition from every living person,
and then, to account for the selectiveness. of Mrs. Piper's subliminal, he
supposes that the thoughts of friends and relatives have a specially
constituted nature to be impressed or selected which others do not
have. Where is the evidence of such an assumption ? Of course, it is
the interesting fact that, generally at least, the "communications*
purport to come from friends, and that spontaneous coincidences are
usually connected with friends. But Mr. Carrington forgets first that
it is only from friends that you can ever discover evidential instances of
spontaneous coincidence, and that it is only incidents about friends that
you can hope to have any chance to verify as a rule. For all that we
know, especially if Mr. Carrington's hypothesis be true, there is
plenty of telepathic communication between living people, but as no
communication of the ordinary sort takes place between them, there
is no evidence of the telepathic impression. It is not necessarily the
mental attitude of our friends that causes the telepathy between us, but
it is the accidental circumstance that we can converse or exchange letters
that proves it, and we must not mistake the evidence of a fact for its
cause. The only resource for Mr. Carrington is to increase the selective
capacity of Mrs. Piper's telepathic action, and so make it so intelligent
and acute that he cannot escape the supposition that it is perfectly
devilish. This is what I had in mind when laying so much stress on
the incident in which my uncle failed to recognize Dr. Hodgson. I was
indicating that telepathy as a mechanical process ought not to coincide
with what we should expect on the spiritistic theory without supposing

XLV.]

Remarks on Mr. Carrington^ Paper.

371

that it was sufficiently intelligent and self-conscious to know what it
was doing, and if it knows this, it knows that its own work is not
spiritistic, and we have to add the devil to it to make the phenomena
intelligible. That it is devilish may be the correct interpretion, and
I shall not claim to possess data for refuting this view ; but I shall
insist on the telepathist recognizing frankly the implications and
consequences of his theory.

Moreover, the fact of friendship is not an intelligible reason for
supposing that telepathy is primarily affected by it. It may be that
it is as imagined, but to justify the supposition, we must have very
much more evidence than the coincidental circumstance that our
collected data represent experiences between friends. Let me say right
here that I can give a very simple explanation of all such coincidences
on the spiritistic theory, but I have always refused to tolerate it even
for myself because it lacks the requisite evidential features. But there
is nothing in friendship, so far as it is psychologically known, to suggest
that telepathic action especially depends on it, and until some reason
can be found, in the very nature of it as a phenomenon, to create this
expectation, we must treat the coincidence between it and telepathy
as insufficiently understood to assume any general law based on it.
Besides, granting it, how would Mr. Carrington explain the constancy
of Mrs. Piper's supposed telepathy in the selection of memories related
to deceased persons and not related to the living, without also supposing
a most fiendish intelligence in the selection? Surely the fact that
a friend has died can hardly so alter the nature of my memories
regarding him as to distinguish them radically from the memories about
living friends. Hence, if telepathy is not intelligently selective, I
ought to get a constant confusion of incidents between the living and
the dead, which as a fact I do not get, as the records show. Again,
I say you must add the devil to your hypothesis to make it work, and
if this is so, let us admit it, and recognize a part of our hypothesis is a
fiendish capacity of the subliminal to know just what it is about and
to simulate the spiritistic exactly.

(14) I am aware that Mr. Carrington regards his hypothesis as merely
tentative, but what I am maintaining is that we are not entitled to
" invent " even tentative hypotheses, unless they actually explain and can
present in their favour an adequate body of empirical evidence. The
contention that the possibility of such a theory renders the spiritistic
theory gratuitous is not relevant, because after admitting that the
spiritistic theory actually explains and has at least some evidence
in its support, it is clear that his own theory is quite as gratuitous

372

Professor J. H. Hyslop.

[part

as the one he wishes to set aside, and the attempt to "invent*
it only reveals a more or less conscious or unconscious motive in the
respectability of scepticism for evading the issue. If gratuitousness is
an objection to a theory, and I admit that it is, I must say that even-
theory not supported by adequate experimental evidence is gratuitous
and so objectionable. "Inventing" hypotheses simply to get rid of
a perfectly plain and reasonable supposition which accords with the
known both in its simplicity and complexity simply reveals, in the last
analysis, a disposition to make our ignorant neighbours' opinions of our
sanity the standard of truth and scientific method. We need some
sense of humour in this matter. I cannot see that the gravity with
which we can propose or receive the most stupendous miracle in favour
of scepticism and incredulity in any way proves that we are scientific.
What we must realize in discussing the spiritistic theory is that it is
not our business to " invent " hypotheses to prove it gratuitous, but to
show that it does not explain and that the evidential conditions are not
satisfied. To resort to the contrivance of a priori hypotheses, however
valuable as indications that the conclusion has not been demonstrated,
is simply a tacit admission that scientifically and inductively the case is
against you. Ail that the spiritistic theory claims is that it conforms
to the canons of induction, not that it is secure against the fertility of
human imagination. It may be false, but it is scientific. So far as we
are concerned, scientific method may not be the criterion of truth, but as
long as that is the accepted standard, and I accept it, we have only to
conform to it to throw upon adherents of that method the responsibility
for accepting or rejecting hypotheses which satisfy their own conditions.
On the other hand, if imagination and " invention " are to be our
criteria, I think the admission would be very cordial that spiritism
would obtain credibility on quite easy terms.

(15) Mr. Carrington has apparently taken no account of the funda-
mental feature of the theory that he is criticising, namely, that the
communicator is not in a normal mental condition while communicating.
That conception is the clue to many of the "difficulties and objections"
which so naturally present themselves against the spiritistic theory. A
recognition of this assumption, as based on (a) the internal evidence of
the messages, (b) the statements of the communicators, and (e) its con-
formity to what we know in pathology, would suggest a unity in the
whole that brings it into an intelligible form. All criticism which
neglects this part of the theory as defended simply evades the issue.
There is no reason to suppose, from any conception of telepathy as it
is experimentally known, that it should reproduce the characteristics of

Digitized by

XLV.]

Remarks on Mr. Carrvngton's Paper.

373

an abnormal mental condition on the " other side/1 which we can easily
understand in terms of the various phenomena of secondary personality.
The theory as I have presented it in my report is not grappled with at
all until this feature of it is adequately noticed. The reader may not
be satisfied with the evidence for the supposition, but he should at least
show why it is neither explanatory nor adequately supported by fact.

374

Frank Podmore.

[pact

ON PROFESSOR HYSLOFS REPORT ON HIS SITTINGS
WITH MRS. PIPER
By Frank Podmore.

That no detailed criticism of Professor Hyslop's report on his series
of sittings with Mrs. Piper has yet appeared, is due no doubt to the
extremely voluminous nature of the report itself and its accompanying
appendices. Certainly the mere bulk of the work is sufficient to repel
most critics. Not lightly may one essay to controvert conclusions
which are supported by some 650 pages of argument and evidence. To
my thinking, however, Professor Hyslop is justified in the appeal
which he makes for a patient and detailed study of records that
involve, even remotely, issues so momentous: —

It seems to me impossible to obtain a proper conception of the issues
involved without a most painstaking study of . . . detailed records. O i
this point I make no concessions to the popular demand for a merely readable
story, but expect from those who claim to be intelligent a minute and
patient study of the phenomena, such as we demand in all scientific and
philosophic problems (Report, p. 18).

After such study as I have been able to give to the matter, I find
that I differ from Professor Hyslop's views almost as widely as it is
possible for one honest and unprejudiced investigator to differ from
another in the interpretation of the same subject-matter. But I
gladly pay my tribute at the outset to his notable industry, patience,
ingenuity, and, above all, his serious and whole-hearted appreciation
of the importance of his task. But my own credentials will no doubt
be called in question, and, indeed, before setting out to explain why
my conclusions on the evidence before us differ from Professor Hyslop1*,
I should like to defend my claim to be considered an unprejudiced
witness. Prior to the publication, in 1898, of Dr. Hodgson's moon-
mental report on Mrs. Piper's later trances (Proceedings, Vol xm.).
I had held that her utterances were amongst the strongest evidences |

clv.*J Professor Hyslop9 s Report on Sittings with Mrs. Piper. 375

vhich we possessed for telepathy, or at least for some supernormal
acuity of acquiring information outside the possible radius of the
senses ; on the other hand, it seemed to me that the indications of
:he action of discarnate spirits were so slight and shadowy as to be
hardly worth taking into account. After some conversations with
Dr. Hodgson during his visit to this country in 1897, and careful
study of the Report issued shortly afterwards, I inclined to the opinion
that the case for spirit intercourse was at any rate strong enough to
be accepted as a provisional hypothesis. That in the course of the
four or five years which have intervened my views have gravitated
back to the standpoint which I held before 1898, is due partly to
recent study of the history of spiritualism, and partly to the perusal
of Professor Hyslop's report. The effect of that report on my mind
has been not merely to discredit altogether the spirit hypothesis
so far as this particular series of seances is concerned, but retro-
spectively to cast some shadow of doubt on the results previously
recorded by Dr. Hodgson.

Thus much in defence of my claim to be heard as an unprejudiced
critic. Now to the argument. Professor Hyslop asserts that the issue
presented by these records " is simply whether spiritism, or telepathy
from living persons exclusively, is the more rational hypothesis to
account for the facts " (p. 5), and as between these two he gives his vote
decidedly in favour of the former. Whether his preference, as between
these two hypotheses, is justified or not, I have not needed to inquire.
The offer of a choice between these alternatives implies the exclusion
of other explanations. To one such possible explanation Professor
Hyslop does briefly define his attitude — fraud is, he thinks, excluded
by the past history of Mrs. Piper's mediumship. Now, certainly, in the
previous seances recorded in Dr. Hodgson's reports, fraud in the only
form not hopelessly inadequate — the acquisition of knowledge by
private detectives — seems excluded by the conditions of the case. But
Dr. Hodgson's case for the exclusion of fraud was founded mainly on
the records of first seances, held with persons whose names were
entirely unknown to Mrs. Piper. Obviously, if Mrs. Piper maintained
however so well equipped a detective agency, she would find little
opportunity to make use of her information until she knew at least the
names of her sitters. Now the first seances on which Dr. Hodgson
relied were in most cases strikingly successful. But the first seance in
Professor Hyslop's series, according to his own original estimate of it, is
" absolutely worthless " as evidence (p. 20). It is true that, in accord-
ance with his mental habit, he modifies this estimate on further refleo

Digitized by

376

Frank Podmore.

[part

tion, and is now of opinion that "it could be made quite intelligible,
if not slightly evidential, by disentangling its threads of suggestive
possibilities." But his original judgment remains on record, and I doubt
if many readers will be inclined to dispute it. The first seance, then,
in the series may be called a failure. But clearly, without imputing
deliberate fraud of a kind of which Mrs. Piper's past history affords no
indication, at each seance after the first it became more and more
likely that the true statements may have been founded on knowledge
normally acquired by the medium, either in her waking state from
things heard and read, or in the trance by inference from things let drop
by the sitter, or generally from his acceptance or rejection of previous
utterances ; and these normal channels of information were possibly
wide enough to have conveyed everything iu the later seances which
was true and relevant. Now, to this question Professor Hyalop has not
addressed himself at all. He contents himself with refusing to discuss
the possibility of fraud, in what he considers the only form conceiv-
able in the case, that is, the employment of detectives for obtaining
information (p. 6), on the ground that that hypothesis was excluded
ten years ago (p. 5). But in connection with the strikingly successful
groups, mostly of first seances, recorded by Dr. Hodgson and others in
previous reports, there was no need to insist upon the possible operation
of such familiar causes as chance-coincidence, fishing, inference from
hints let drop at the sitting, or the reproduction of information casually
acquired by the medium before the s&mce, because the facts stated at
these seances were often so detailed and accurate as to make the mere
suggestion of such an explanation ridiculous. The question of deli-
berate and systematic fraud was discussed and rejected, not merely as
being inadequate to the results, but as being, with anonymous sitters,
practically impossible. In considering the present records, however, in
which the first seance was a failure, and the chief successes were scored
towards the end of a series which extended over many months, when
the sitter had long ceased to be anonymous, we may perhaps exclude
fraud, but we are not equally entitled to exclude chance-coincidence,
skilful inference, and the reproduction of information casually acquired
Professor Hyslop says indeed (p. 11) that he was careful to avoid
giving suggestions, either muscular or by his questions. But it
appears from the record that he generally let the medium know
whether her statements were right or wrong, so that she might have
been enabled gradually to correct them, which she seems to have
done.

In considering generally from the evidential standpoint the utter*

XLV.] Professor Hy slop's Report on Sittifigs with Mrs. Piper. 377

ances at Mrs. Piper's later seances, it is to be noted first, that the
machinery of the trance communication is by no means simple, or even
intelligible, except with expert interpretation. Mrs. Piper is entranced,
and apparently unconscious of what goes on. The messages given are
written through her hand. The intelligence which inspires those
messages, whatever its precise nature, is certainly complex, and of an
unusual if not unique kind. The view of the process of communication
provisionally adopted by Dr. Hodgson and Professor Hyslop is that
Mrs. Piper's organism is made use of by the spirits of certain deceased
persons for the purpose of communicating with their friends who are
still living here. But for the most part that communication is supposed
to take place in an indirect way. Professor Hyslop's father does
not, ex hypothesi, himself control the bodily movements of Mrs. Piper.
That function is too delicate and uncertain to be entrusted to any but
an expert spirit. Professor Hyslop's father, uncle, brother, or other
communicating spirit, dictates, therefore, what ho wishes said to one of
the customary controls, usually "Rector" or "6. P.," who in turn
translates the messages somehow into terms of Mrs. Piper's muscular
activity. But occasionally the ordinary process is interrupted by the
intrusion of alien spirits, who either succeed temporarily in obtaining
possession of Mrs. Piper's organism or divert the attention of the
controlling spirit. Once more, the supposed orderly process may be
interrupted by "automatisms" — vague, meaningless remarks thrown
out by the communicating spirit (or by Mrs. Piper's own subliminal
consciousness). Thus on p. 332 occurs the remark, "Do you hear
her sing?" This remark is not, to the uninstructed reader, more out
of place than many other remarks interjected in the course of the trance-
writings. But it is not recognised by Professor Hyslop as relevant,
and is dismissed as " one of the automatisms which are quite frequent
in these sittings" (p. 352, note). Now, cumbrous and far-fetched
though this hypothesis of communication at two removes may appear,
there can be little doubt that it has a very direct relation to the
observed phenomena, so direct that we are practically confined to the
choice of one out of two alternatives — the hypothesis either accurately
represents the facts, or is itself responsible for the appearances which
suggest those facts. If Mrs. Piper's organism is not controlled by
spirits in the manner supposed, we are forced to conclude that her
trance utterances have been moulded to their present form so as to
accord with a theory gradually elaborated by Dr. Hodgson and his
fellow- workers.

The practical result of this complicated mechanism is that the

Digitized by Google

378

Frank Podmore.

[PABT

messages delivered through the entranced Mrs. Piper are extraordi-
narily ambiguous and uncertain in their interpretation. To begin with
the simplest difficulty, the actual script is extremely indistinct, and can
apparently only be read, if read at all, by those who, like Dr. Hodgson
himself, have had long practice in deciphering it. In some instances
quoted in the reports it seems to have baffled even Dr. Hodgson.
The ambiguity of the writing may sometimes have given openings by
which the trance intelligence could gain information. Consider, for
instance, this passage :

" I am with her (with whom T). Yes, I have A A [undec,

possibly either Alice or Annie]. (Is it Alice?) Alice (Alice who?) I do
not say Alice, I say Annie" (p. 307).

This is quite in Phinuit's old style. Again, in one place the word
" mother " is printed five times, but " a close re-examination of the
original automatic writing indicates that the first of these words looks
like 'mother/ The others look like 'brother'" (p. 316). On another
occasion the sitter asks, " Who passed out soon after you 1 " The
answer given is "mother [1 brother] is here also" (p. 331). In some
cases the indistinctness of the writing may even have led to uncon-
scious perversion of the record. In one case, e.g., the sitter asks for
the name of a younger brother to be given. The writing proceeds.

"Cannot hear you. Do not hurry so. Do you mean F '

(Sitter: 'Yes, father, I mean F., if you can tell the rest') 'Yes,
I can remember very well, FRAD (?).' " Professor Hyslop then
explains that the symbol printed as D was really very like XK,
and that Frank was the brother's name (pp. 337-8). One cannot
help wondering whether, if the brother's name had happened to be
Fred, the resemblance of the last character to NK would have
seemed to Professor Hyslop quite so conspicuous.

But, after all, the writing is the least of the difficulties in the
interpretation of these communications. The really serious obstacle
lies in the nature of the communications themselves. There is a
large amount of what, for our present purposes, we must dismiss as
mere padding. The controlling spirits are voluble in protesting that
they will do their best ; asking the sitter to have patience ; complain-
ing of the conditions, and so on. This part of the communications
is coherent enough, but not evidential. The messages of deceased
relatives are for the most part fragmentary and incoherent. They
are also indirect, tentative, and ambiguous in form. Last of all, they
frequently, perhaps generally in the earlier sittings, contain no indica-
tion of the identity of the supposed communicator. That identity

Digitized by

xi/v.] Professor Hy slop's Report on Sittings with Mrs. Piper. 379

has to be inferred from internal evidence. In other words, the message
is assigned to the relative to whom it would be most appropriate.
Thus, to take one case out of many, Professor Hyslop explains that at
a certain part of the first sitting he originally supposed himself to be
communicating with his brother, but later saw reason, purely from
internal evidence, to suppose that his father, not his brother, was the
communicator (pp. 22, 307, and 361). In other words, the messages
for the most part bear no label of origin ; in some cases they bear no
label of destination either. Names are thrown out haphazard, to be
taken up and identified or left, as the sitter wills. Thus, to take a
salient case, at the second sitting the " control " announces that there is
a bttle girl-spirit trying to find her mother. He then proceeds :
" Who is Ruth ?

(Hyslop : I do not know Kuth.)

Not to thee, friend, but to thee [i.e. it refers to RH.]" (p. 319).

If we were dealing with the ordinary professional clairvoyant, who
describes, before a roomful of her clients, the apparition of a sweet-
faced widow lady, or an old gentleman with silver hair, or some other
typical figure, we should say that the conditions were cunningly
devised to ensure that her clairvoyant descriptions should^never fail to
find a billet somewhere. In reality, ambiguous messages of the kind
often dealt in by Mrs. Piper, bearing marks neither of origin nor of
destination, widen the scope of chance-coincidence in much the same
way, though no doubt to a less extent. Obviously the cap is more
likely to be found to fit if it is not aimed at one particular head.

The evidential value of fragmentary, incoherent, and indirect state-
ments of the kind here dealt in by the trance-intelligence is extremely
difficult to estimate. Taken as they stand, many of them are meaning-
less. To have any meaning, they require to be filled in or inter-
preted. It is, of course, in the process of filling in or interpretation
that the real clanger lies. The material is so vague that several inter-
pretations would often fit about equally well, and the interpreter
is tempted to choose that meaning which best accords with his wishes
or his preconceptions.

But to come to particulars. It would obviously be impracticable,
within reasonable limits of space, to analyse the evidence presented by
the whole series of sittings. Nor is any such complete analysis
necessary. As already pointed out, the information given at a pro-
longed series of sittings is of course less and less valuable as evidence
for supernormal activity (spirits, telepathy, or anything else) the later
it comes in the series. At each sitting the medium starts with a

380

Frank Podmore.

[part

larger stock of information, normally acquired, than at the sitting
which went before. Moreover, as the sittings proceed, the medium
obviously has more and more opportunities of acquiring information
from outside sources. I do not suggest that the medium, in the present
case, made any illegitimate use of any outside source of information which
may have been accessible to her; but clearly that possibility is not
one which we can altogether exclude. For this reason I should have
preferred to begin my analysis of Professor Hyslop's records with the
first sitting. But as the first seance was at the best inferior to the
others, in order not to treat the case unfairly I have chosen the second
stance for detailed analysis.1 As the first seance, however, is evi-
dentially the critical one, I have thought it well to give a brief
summary of its results, which does not greatly differ from Professor
Hyslop's own statistical summary in the table printed on p. 118 of his
Report.

After the preliminary conversation with the controlling spirits, there
enter at the first sitting a lady with gloves and a little girl, who do
not give their names and who fail to obtain recognition. Thereafter,
in the course of the sitting, seventeen names are introduced spon-
taneously by the trance-intelligence. Of these, five — Margaret, Annie,
Charles, Willie, and Elizabeth — are correct; but it should be added
that the lady introduced as Elizabeth was known in life as Eliza. Of
the remaining names 1 1 are incorrect, viz., Lillie, Alice, Henry, Albert,
Alfred, Mr. Morse, Walter, Edwards, Ell-el, Robertson, Corrie, But
u Lillie," we are told, would have been correct and pertinent if it had
been Sarah Luella ; " Ell-el " might be an attempt at Eliza ; " Robert-
son" would have a meaning if it were Roberta son; and "Corrie"
might have been intended for Mary or for Cornelia. Finally, there is
a name not deciphered, but probably intended for Ellen or Allen. On
this Professor Hyslop comments, "Allan (sic) could have one possible
meaning, and Ellen two."

The amount of coincidence here is clearly not more than chance
would afford. In fact, the trance-intelligence may be accounted
distinctly unlucky in scoring only 5 successes in 16 trials with quite
commonplace names. Probably in most English families, at any rate,
the number of hits would have been greater.

The second sitting was, according to the statistical summary, one of
the most uniformly successful of the whole series. There are,
according to Professor Hyslop, 12 "incidents," resoluble into 49

1 See Professor Hyslop's remarks on the first seance (Report, pp. 20 and 21)
and his statistical summary, on p. 118, of the statements contained in it.

Digitized by

xlv.] Professor Hy slop's Report on Sittings with Mrs. Piper. 381

"factors/' of which 45 are true, 3 indeterminate, and one false.
Clearly, therefore, we shall do no injustice to the record if, having
perforce to content ourselves with analysing a sample, we choose the
second stance for the purpose.

Now there is one, and, so far as I can find, only one definite true
statement made at this stance. The full name of the sitter— James
Hyslop — is given. Even that information is given piecemeal — the
" James " at the beginning, the " Hyslop " at the end of the sitting —
a procedure which, if fraud were in question, would certainly seem
suspicious.

If the sitter's name had been given at the first stance, when the
precautions taken against the discovery of his identity seem to have
been pretty complete, it would have been a valuable piece of evidence.
Coming, in this piecemeal fashion, 24 hours later, when the medium
had had the opportunity of passing in review the events of the first
sitting, and the names of likely sitters, we cannot assign so much
weight to it. Professor Hyslop's general interest in the subject was
known, since he had lectured on psychical research even in his
father's lifetime. And to Miss Edmunds, at any rate, it appeared
probable that he was one of the persons who would apply to
have sittings with Mrs. Piper (see p. 345). In the circumstances
the name "James" may have been a "try-on," the favourable
reception of which would justify the confident ejaculation of
" Hyslop " at the end of the sitting. Excluding " Ruth," of which
we have already spoken, four other names were correctly given at
this stance— George, Charles, Willie, and Eliza (Elizabeth). All these
had been introduced at the previous seance, the first-named by Professor
Hyslop himself. Moreover, the relationship (brother) of George and
Charles had also been indicated at the preceding seance ; and the rela-
tionship of Willie and Eliza is not precisely indicated in the second
seance. Three names are incorrectly introduced — "Robertson,"
"Elsie" (which is promptly changed, after repudiation by the sitter,
to Eliza), and "Uncle Charles." The sitter remarks that he does not
know any Uncle Charles. The trance-intelligence replies: "I think
is not a real uncle ; you must remember what I mean." Professor
Hyslop's comment is : " With the resemblance of the word Charles
(slight resemblance only, and noticeable only to those familiar with
these sittings) to this uncle's name, and the fact that he was not a real
uncle, the incident has a perfectly definite meaning" (p. 316). He was
apparently an uncle by marriage, and his name, as we learn later, was
James B. Carruthers.

382

Frank Podmore.

[past

There is one other quite definite statement made at the sitting.
Professor Hyslop's father was, he says, " the last to come here." This
is claimed as correct, and it is correct if understood to apply only to
the immediate family. It is not even true of blood-relations, for
Professor Hyslop's cousin, Robert H. M'Clellan, had died since (p. 17).
Still less is it true of the communicators in general, for the uncle by
marriage, who is supposed to be communicating through a considerable
part of this same seance, had also died after Mr. Hyslop, senior.
Supposing that the form of the sentence had been modified, and Mr.
Hyslop's spirit had said that he was the last but one to come here, or
even the last but two, would Professor Hyslop have written down either
of these statements as false ?

If we turn to the substance of the communications, we shall find
them much more coherent than in the previous sitting, but on the
other hand there are fewer definite statements. The intelligence
communicating is much freer, and seems more sure of the ground, but
contrives to utter very little beyond the commonplace or the readily
conjecturable.

I will briefly summarise the various points, omitting the purely
general topics, such as the difficulties of communicating, the pleasure
of meeting the sitter again, the grief of those left behind, etc., matters
which make up a large part of the communication :

(A) After the introduction of the two names, "James" and
"Willie," comes the advice, "Do not work too hard." This com-
munication is interpreted as coming from the sitter's father.

(B) A few lines introducing Brother Charles, and interpreted as
coming from him.

(C) A passage with the advice : " Don't worry ; " a reference to
"trouble in your (sitter's) head," which Professor Hyslop cannot
distinctly remember. The passage concludes with the words, " Tired

In the detailed notes (p. 314) the passage is interpreted as coming
from the father. But in the report (p. 28) it is apparently assigned
to the uncle.

(D) "E— Elsie, El— Elsie" is written. Sitter repudiates the
name Elsie, and it is immediately changed to Eliza. Then follows
general talk about the loneliness and grief of Eliza, after the sitter had
intimated by his question that Eliza was still living.

This passage is referred to the sitter's uncle, James Carruthers.

(E) A reference to "Uncle Charles," with the explanation, added
after repudiation by sitter of the suggested relationship : " Not a real

out.1

XL v.] Professor Hy slop's Report on Sittings with Mrs. Piper. 38$

uncle ; " a statement that he (or the sitter) " used to be so nervous ; "
a message to "the girls;" a question, "Have you seen the children
yet ; " a reference to George, and then : " Are you troubled about
him ? He is all right and will be, James." Then the advice : " Worry
not ; " and the recognition of the accordion, which had been brought to*
the seance, with other things belonging to the late Mr. Hyslop, in
accordance with the usual practice at these stances of bringing objects
familiar to the deceased person who is supposed to communicate.
This passage is interpreted as coming from the father.

(F) Another reference to "Eliza," and a decided change in the
attitude of the communicating intelligence, possibly inspired by the
sitter, who on the introduction of the name Eb'za remarks : " Tell us
who are with you, and that will help Eliza."

The passage is referred to the uncle.

(G) A reference to the sitter's lectures, and to his scepticism about a
future life.

Referred to the father.

(H) The Ruth episode.

(I) Sitters father states he was "the last to come here." More
reference to sitter's difficulties and scepticism.

(K) Sitting ends with Mrs. Piper's ejaculation of the sitter's surname
— Hyslop.

It will be seen from this bald summary — the accuracy of which can
be tested by reference to the full report of the sitting — that, if we
omit the reference to the trouble with George, there is nothing in the
statements made to call even for the exercise of telepathy. There is
certainly a shrewd appreciation of Professor Hyslop's own character,
and of the relations subsisting between him and his father ; in short, a
dramatic realisation of the situation generally. But a person of
somewhat more than the ordinary acuteness and sympathetic insight
into character would probably have made as good a show by utilising
the experience gained at the first sitting, even if the identity of the
sitter remained unknown. But, as already said, it seems possible
that, in the twenty-four hours which elapsed between the first sitting
and the second, Mrs. Piper's trance-intelligence had penetrated Pro-
fessor Hyslop's disguise ; and that when he came for the second time she
knew or strongly suspected who he was. Such an assumption seems,
however, hardly necessary to explain the results. The things said are
the mere commonplace of mediumistic seances ;• the attitude indicated
of the older to the younger generation is far from being uncommon; in

384

Frank Podmore.

[part

short, the whole situation is such as might have been divined by an
intelligence far inferior to that of Mrs. Piper's trance-personality. But
Professor Hyslop says that not only the ideas, but the form in which
they are conveyed, were characteristic of his father. Here, again, the
phraseology seems too little distinctive to justify any certain inferenee.
They are phrases which, in this country at any rate, would naturally
come from the mouth of a medium playing, with some plausibility it
must be admitted, the part here assumed. But let the reader judge for
himself. Here are the chief words and phrases used at the seance, and
claimed as characteristic : " Give me my hat and let me go;" " Tired
out ; " "• It was me [the " me " is natural for father] " ; " What is their
loss is our gain ; " " Stick to this ; " "Do you recall your lectures, and,
if so, to whom do you recite them now ? [this word " recite * is very
singular: it is like him];" "Well, I was not so far wrong, after all;"
" You had your own ideas ; " " Well, it is not a fault ; " " Sincerity of
purpose ; " " All the difficulties which you encounter," etc, etc.

One more point before we leave the consideration of this seance. In
the statistical summary already mentioned Professor Hyslop enumerates
49 separate factors, of which one only is classed as false. There were
three incorrect names given — "Elsie," "Robertson," and "Uncle
Charles." Which of them is classed as " false," and which as " true "
or " indeterminate " ?

Let us now take a sample from another part of the series. In
February, 1899, Dr. Hodgson held five sittings with Mrs. Piper, on
Professor Hyslop's behalf, in the absence of that gentleman. I propose
to deal with the first of these, partly because it is the first, partly
because, as containing no " mixed " or " indeterminate " statements,
it is the simplest. Every statement is classed, in the statistical summary,
as true or false : there are 8 true incidents, consisting of 14 factors,
and 2 false incidents, one containing 4 and the other 6 factors, or 14
true factors against 10 false; on the whole a favourable balance. I
cannot, by any system of calculation, make my analysis of the sitting
agree with Professor Hyslop's. The false factors can readily be
identified ; indeed I make the total sum rather larger. But the true
factors, on the most favourable interpretation, amount, according to my
reckoning, to 1 1 only. But let the reader judge. The relevant matter
begins about half way down page 370.

Rector is represented as explaining to the spirit of Professor
Hyslop's father that the sitter is "not James, but Hodgson." The
spirit then says that he wants to speak to James (one true factor), and
refers to a previous conversation on the subject of Emanuel Swedenborg

Digitized by

XL v.] Professor Hyslop1 s Report on Sittings with Mrs. Piper. 385

(one true incident, consisting of two factors, but clearly not evidential,
as the reference to Swedenbprg had been made at a previous sitting).

Then follows the precise statement by the spirit : " I am thinking of
the time some years ago when I went into the mountains for a change
with him, and the trip we had to the lake after we left the camp " (one
wholly false incident of 4 factors).

Next comes a long and definite, though fragmentary, account of a
trip out west, and an accident to the train, owing to the engine going
through a bridge, which delayed their journey several days, and gave
his father a nervous shock, from which he never fully recovered (one
wholly false incident of 6 factors).

There is a vague reference to a fire (one true factor, but not
evidential, as it had already cropped up at previous sittings).

After the mention of the fire, and the railway accident, and the
nervous shock, comes the statement: "I have now completely recovered
from this, and I can walk about as well as ever I could" (p. 372).
Apparently Professor Hyslop counts this statement as true (one " true "
incident of 2 factors).

A reference to "long talks" on "possibilities of communication "
(one true incident of 2 factors).

A spectacle case is produced. The spirit recognises the case as
having been his own, and states correctly that he called the glasses
" spectacles " (one true incident of 2 factors).

There is then a reference to " Nannie." As there was apparently no
person named Nannie to whom a reference here could be pertinent,
I should class "Nannie" as false, or, at best, as indeterminate. But
it seems clear from the summary that Professor Hyslop has classed
it as true, on the assumption that " Nannie " was Rector's mistake for
" Maggie " (one false factor).

The only other evidential statement in the seance occurs on p. 375,
an allusion to Professor Hyslop being in New York at the time (one
true factor, but, as Professor Hyslop points out, the statement has
little evidential value).

To sum up, then, I find 11 false factors as against 10, and 11 true as
against 14, on Professor Hyslop's reckoning.

Practically not one of the 11 true factors has any value as evidence,
being either repetition of statements made at previous sittings, or, as
in the case of the recognition of the spectacle case, things such as the
medium could readily infer without extraneous assistance.

But the false statements are new, precise, and categorical. And
Professor Hyslop adopts a very curious method of dealing with

386

Frank Podmore.

[part

them. The statement that Mr. Hyslop, senior, went with his son
to the mountains, and then on a trip to the lake after leaving the
lamp, is admitted to be false. But they did once go together to a
town called Champaign (generally pronounced Shampane, and so
pronounced, according to the stepmother, by Mr. Hyslop, senior,
though Professor Hyslop thinks he called it Camp&ne). After this they
went to Chicago, and naturally visited the lake shore whilst in the city.
Professor Hyslop then suggests a possible reconstruction of the
statement, as follows:

Mr. Hyslop, senior, is supposed to be dictating to Rector, who is
writing through Mrs. Piper's hand (p. 409) :

"I am thinking of the time some years ago when I went into [Father stys
'Illinois.' Rector does not understand this, and asks if he means 'billy.'
Father says, 4 no ! prairies.1 Rector does not understand. Father says, 4 do
mountains.' Rector understands this as 4 No ! Mountains,' and continues]
the mountains for a change with him, and the trip we had to the lake after
we left [Father says, 4 Champaign.' Rector understands * camp,' and con-
tinues] the camp." The name of the town is usually pronounced Shampamt,
and according to my stepmother my father so pronounced it when living,
though my own recollection is that he often pronounced it Campane,

The following are a few more instances of the same method : On p.
384 the spirit being asked what medicine he used to take besides
strychnine and Hyomei, replies morphine. Mr. Hyslop, senior, did
not apparently take morphine, but he did take arsenic "Now this
arsenic is not morphine, but it is a poison that was very closely
associated in father's mind when living with the common class of
poisons, and it might be a natural mistake to make here in men-
tioning it instead of arsenic" (p. 410).

Again (p. 386) the spirit is asked if he remembers Samuel Cooper.
The reply is that he was an old friend in the West, and that they used
to have long talks on philosophical subjects. Of Samuel Cooper, an old
neighbour of Mr. Hyslop' s, the statement is false. But there was
(p. 411) a Dr. Joseph Cooper, with whom Mr. Hyslop may have
corresponded on theological matters in 1858. It is true that Joseph
is not the same name as Samuel, that the correspondence is purely
conjectural, that in any case writing is not the same as talking, and
that theology is not precisely philosophy, also, that Dr. Cooper did
not live West of Mr. Hyslop, but, unfortunately, East There was,
however, a Cooper Memorial College, which was founded after his
death, of which Mr. Hyslop may have been thinking ; or the mention
of talk on philosophy may have been intended to refer to Dr. Cooper's

Digitized by

xlv.] Professor Hy 'slop's Report on Sittings with Mrs. Piper. 387

correspondence on theology with Professor Hyslop's uncle. "The
misunderstanding would probably be Rector's " (p. 500). On the whole
Professor Hyslop thinks that the incident " has considerable interest
and importance" (p. 410).

Once more, after referring to friendly discussion and correspondence
with Cooper, the spirit continues (p. 397) : " I had also several tokens
(1 the word is apparently not legible), which I recollect well. One
was a photo, to which I referred when James was present. . . No
photograph can apparently be traced of either Samuel Cooper or
Joseph Cooper. But Professor Hyslop finds much significance in the
allusion to the " tokens." For his explanation of the term, which is
too long and involved to quote, see pp. 411-2.

Or, again, take this statement. The spirit says (p. 397) : " Do you
remember the stick I used to carry with the turn in the end, on which
I carved my initials 1 If so, what have you done with it ? They are
in the end — with the turn — turn, he says."

To a plain man this is a very clear and definite description of a stick
with a curved handle, having the owner's initials carved by himself on
the curved part of the handle. Now Mr. Hyslop, senior, did at one
time possess a stick with his initials carved upon it, not apparently by
himself; but the stick was straight. Further, he had possessed at
least two sticks with curved handles, but on neither were his initials
carved. But one of the latter sticks had been given to Mr. Hyslop by
his brother-in-law, who had been responsible for the loss of the straight,
initial-bearing stick.

" If, then, the sentence had read : 4 Do you remember the stick I used to
carry with the turn in the end, which was given me for the one on which
ray initials were carved in the end?' it would have expressed the exact
truth very clearly . . . and there would have been no confusion about it "

It is hardly necessary to give any more instances, or to carry the
analysis further. The reader can compare my summary with the
detailed statements in the appendices, and see for himself whether
I have perverted the facts. He can also, with very little trouble,
satisfy himself that the samples which I have chosen for analysis have
not been chosen unfairly. No doubt the last series of sittings, held in
May and June, 1899, show a decidedly smaller proportion of incorrect
statements, and a larger amount of coherent and relevant matter. But
this was of course inevitable, if the trance-intelligence knew how to
profit by its own previous mistakes, and to utilise information gained
from the sitter at previous seances. Moreover, we are hardly entitled

(p. 415).

388

Frank Podmore.

[part

to assume, as Professor Hyslop does apparently assume, that the
medium did not make use of external sources of information.

The conclusion reached some years since by Dr. Hodgson and most
other persons who have studied the previous evidence — that Mrs.
Piper, as a matter of fact, did not derive the information uttered in her
trances from such sources as private enquiry agencies — rests primarily
on the consideration that the actual conditions under which the seances
were held would have rendered such fraud useless or impossible. It
did not rest, and ought not to rest, on any one's conviction of the
honesty of the medium. The whole history of spiritualism and psychical
research should convince us that we are never entitled to assume the
honesty of the medium. We know at once too much and too little of
mediumship. Too much, for we know that almost every type of
mediumship has been connected with dishonesty in the past; too
little, for if there are honest mediums we don't know by what signs to
distinguish them from the dishonest ones. I take it as axiomatic
then that if any information was given at these later seances which
could, in the interval of five months and a half which had elapsed
between the first seance of the first series and the last of this later series,
have been obtained by any fairly intelligent person, — whether from
registers, tombstones, old newspapers, directories, or any other sources.
— this information is to be attributed to such sources. That so
little real information was given goes to show that at any rate the
medium was not an adept in making enquiries. But there is one
incident — the curious confusion between the identity of John
M'Clellan, father of one of the communicating spirits, and another
person of the same name coming from the same part of the country,
to whom reference is made in a county history — which might be
held to point to an unsuccessful attempt of the kind. Professor
Hyslop considers the passage in which this suspicious mistake is
made as "one of the finest sets of pertinent and evidential incidents
in the record" (pp. Ill, 470, 535).

Psychologists tell us that in perceptive processes inadequate and
ambiguous stimuli are peculiarly apt to give rise to hallucination ; or,
in other words, faint sights and sounds are liable to be interpreted
according to the wishes or beliefs of the percipient: and the same
law appears to hold good when we are dealing not with sensations but
with ideas. History supplies us with abundant examples of elaborate
theories constructed out of material sufficiently vague and indeter-
minate to allow wide latitude of interpretation.

Digitized by

XLV.]

Review.

389

SUPPLEMENT.
REVIEWS.

Modem Spiritualism : a History and a Criticism. By Frank Podmore.
2 Vols. 8vo. (Methuen & Co., Loudon, 1902.)

Apart from the Proceedings themselves, this book may fairly be described
as the most important contribution to the subject of psychical research that
has — up to the end of 1902 — appeared since the publication of Phantasms
of the Living. If a long and profound study of the subject and a wide
acquaintance with cognate subjects, an accurate knowledge of facts and a
philosophic grasp of principles, a strict and impartial adherence to scientific
method regardless of whether or not it leads to distasteful conclusions, — if
these are the qualities requisite for dealing with this topic, it would be
bard to find any living writer better fitted than Mr. Podmore for the
work.

Apart from the desirability of having the whole history in a single
compact form, with the most copious and exact references to the original
authorities, we had reached a stage at which a critical summary of
the results so far attained was urgently needed, and it is fortunate indeed
that both tasks have fallen into such competent hands. It may be
added that the book is written in a clear, concise and crisp style, which
makes it easy and pleasant to read.

The author thus describes his object in writing it (Vol. I., p. xi) : " The
system of beliefs known as Modern Spiritualism — a system which in one
aspect is a religious faith, in another claims to represent a new department
of natural science — is based on the interpretation of certain obscure
facts as indicating the agency of the spirits of dead men and women.
The primary aim of the present work is to provide the necessary data
for determining how far, if at all, that interpretation is justified. But
the question, Is the belief justified ? cannot, as the whole history of
mysticism stands to prove, be finally answered until we are prepared
with a more or less adequate answer to two subsidiary questions : first,
If not justified, what is the true interpretation of the facts ? and, second,
How can the origin and persistence of the false interpretation be
explained?"

Digitized by Google

390

Alice Johnson.

[part

To answer these questions, we have to take account of the history
of the movement and of the prior systems of belief from which it sprang.
The persistent neglect of the evidence by its opponents seems to have
been due to their belief that the movement would die out of itself ; and
ten years ago these expectations appeared on the way to fulfilment ;
but within the last decade the strongest evidence ever adduced for the
belief in communion with the dead has been furnished through Mr*.
Piper, while the physical manifestations occurring in the presence of
Eusapia Paladino have strongly impressed more than one eminent man
of science.

"Whether the belief in the intercourse with spirits is well founded
or not, it is certain (says Mr. Podmore, Vol. L, p. xiii) that no critic
has yet succeeded in demonstrating the inadequacy of the evidence upon
which the Spiritualists rely. That evidence groups itself into two distinct
categories; and in some cases those who accept the one category reject
wholly or in part facts coming under the other. In the first place we have
to consider certain subconscious activities manifesting themselves in trance
speaking, automatic writing, seeing of visions, which though they may be
readily counterfeited, are not necessarily, or in typical cases, associated with
imposture. In the second place, second in the historical as in the logical
order, there are certain physical manifestations, unquestionably, in their
later developments, bearing strong resemblance to conjuring tricks, but
as unquestionably appearing in the first instance in the presence and
through the agency of uneducated and unskilled persons, mostly young
children, and in circumstances where the hypothesis of trickery presents
formidable moral as well as physical difficulties."

To the man in the street, " spiritualism " generally connotes the " physical
phenomena " only ; and though to students of psychical research the
mental phenomena are at least equally familiar, Mr. Podmore's analysis
of the development of the two classes is not only original, but highly
instructive.

He points out that the physical phenomena are of comparatively recent
origin. With the exception of the single well-defined Poltergeist type,
there is — broadly speaking — no parallel to be found for them in civilised
countries during the last three or four centuries at least.1 On the other
hand the mental manifestations — inspired writing and speaking, spiritual
healing, telepathy and clairvoyance— may be derived directly through the
phenomena of Animal Magnetism back to those of ecstasy, obsession,
magic and witchcraft. Thus it appears that this type stretches back in
a series that has probably never been broken to the dawn of human
history, — showing so far no tendency to disappear with the advance of
civilisation, — while the former species has only occurred sporadically —

1Mn. Sidgwick points out in her article on " Spiritualism " in the Encyclopedia
Britannica that a practice of causing heavily -loaded tables to rise by "magic" seems
to have existed among the German Jews in the 17th oentury. See Von Harless,

Aegyptische Myttcrien, 1856, pp. 130-132.

XLV.]

Review.

391

as a sort of adventitious or parasitic aftergrowth, attached here and there
to the main organism of belief, but at no time forming an integral part
of it

"For the proper understanding of the subject it is essential to note
(Vol. I., p. xiv) that the recognition of the trance phenomena, as testifying
to the existence of a spiritual world, preceded the acceptance of the physical
manifestations as signs and wonders vouchsafed from that world. The
raps and movements of tables did not, in the ultimate analysis, originate
anything ; they served merely to confirm a pre-existing belief. It is, no
doubt, amongst other causes, primarily because of the failure to recognise
this historical sequence that most attempts to demonstrate the falsity
of the Spiritualist belief have proved ineffectual. It was of little use
for the American doctors to prove that the raps could be produced by
cracking of the joints, or Faraday that tables could be turned by un-
conscious muscular action alone ; for Maskelyne to imitate the rope-tying
feats of the Davenport Brothers ; or for hardy investigators at a later
date to seize the spirit form at a dark stance. Alike in the larger historical
cycle and in the sequence of each individual experience, the faith in
Spiritualism was buttressed by these things, not based on them ; and
though shaken, could not be permanently overthrown by any demonstration
of their futility."

The subject divides itself into three main topics, which we may take in
order : (1) the history of the movement, (2) the so-called physical
phenomena, (3) the mental manifestations.

Mr. Podmore shows that Spiritualism is historically the direct outgrowth
of Animal Magnetism, starting, e.g., in America from the revelations
of a magnetic clairvoyant, Andrew Jackson Davis — the " Poughkeepsie
Seer," and its first exponents being drawn from the ranks of those who
had studied and practised Animal Magnetism. The spiritualistic inter-
pretation of the trance had also been widely adopted in Europe long
before 1848, the year of (among other things) the famous rappings. For
a proper understanding of the subject of Spiritualism, then, it becomes
necessary to study the earlier mystical beliefs and especially the cult of
Animal Magnetism in America and Europe. Until recently those who
paid any attention to this cult were divided into two fiercely opposed
camps — one believing devoutly not only in the phenomena but in the
most fantastic explanations of them, especially the operation of a subtle
fluid ; while the other rejected them wholesale, as the results at least of
mal-observation, if not of fraud. The two eminent men of science,
Bertrand and Braid, who accepted the phenomena while attempting to
relate them to known physiological laws, entirely failed to gain the ear
of their scientific contemporaries, and were treated with even more con-
tumely by believers than by sceptics. " Nature, it may be said, (observes

I. The History of the Movement.

392

Alice Johnson,

[part

Mr. Podmore) abhors a Mugwump." Let us hope that the S.P.R. will never
be led to stultify its work through sharing in the same prejudice !

In the case of hypnotism, posterity came round after all to the side of
the Mugwumps, finding in their views a rationalistic explanation of facts
which it was no longer possible to ignore ; and Mr. Podmore suggests
that the modern doctrine of telepathy may similarly be found to furnish
a rationalistic explanation of many facts which have been attributed to
spiritual agencies. Readers of the Proceedings will be aware that the same
view was maintained by Mr. Myers in his articles on automatic writing,
although, of course, Mr. Podmore is inclined to press the explanation much
further than Mr. Myers did.

His work is divided into four books : I. The Pedigree of Spiritualism ;
II. Early American Spiritualism ; III. Spiritualism in England ; IV.
Problems of Mediumship. In Book I., Possession and Witchcraft are
fir»t treated of, with accounts of many historical cases of "speaking with
tongues" (a topic which recurs in connection with various clairvoyants and
later trance mediums) : the Nuns of Louduu, the Tremblers of the Cevennes,
the Convulsionarie8 of St Medard and the Irvingites. Witchcraft has
often been taken as a text to show the folly of human beliefs and the
unreliability of human testimony. In Phantasms of the Living Gurney
had already pointed out that, as a matter of fact, the evidence for witch-
craft was very poor, consisting to a large extent of inferences rather
than observations, while the observations were either those of children
and uneducated persons, or reported at second-hand. To this Mr.
Podmore adds an instructive comparison of the earlier witchcraft to the
later Poltergeist phenomena. In both cases it is almost always children
or uneducated persons who are concerned. There is much, again, in witch-
craft which is now understood to be due to hysteria and suggestion,
affecting both the bystanders and agents or victims, and Mr. Podmore
gives reasons for supposing that the similar Poltergeist effects are attribut-
able to similar causes.

It is important to note that the general argument depends for its
cogency on the assumption— an assumption amply borne out by the whole
history of "physical phenomena" — that the things described were not the
things that occurred, but only what the witnesses — sooner or later, but
generally later — believed to have occurred. Not that this assumption is
taken by the writer for granted ; but that detailed comparisons of
contemporary with later, and first-hand with second-hand, evidence show
it to be necessary. The principle has long been accepted — theoretically—
by the S.P.R., and we lose nothing by seeing it applied now and then
with relentless logic.

An interesting confirmation of Mr. Podmore's explanation of Poltergeists
is to be found in a case given above (p. 320) by Mr. Lang, in which
Poltergeist phenomena were produced by a servant girl in consequence —
apparently — of a prediction made to her by a witch, which seems to have
acted as a suggestion. The special interest of this case is that the girl

XLV.]

Review.

£93

appears to have acted automatically, without intention and perhaps

We may find in the future that a good many cases of "physical
phenomena" may be similarly explained. See e.g. a case reported by
Professor Janet iu the Bulletin de VInstitut Psychologique International
(December, 1901) and referred to by Mr. Podmore (Vol. II., p. 325).

The next part of the book treats of the rise and progress of " animal
magnetism" before and after Mesmer, its spread in different countries
and the various theories as to some kind of force, generally conceived of
as a fluid, to which the effects were attributed ; the early observations of
the trance by Puysegur ; the so-called transpositions of the senses described
by P£t6tin ; the occasional instances of what appeared to be clairvoyance
or thought-transference observed by some of the most scientific investi-
gators ; the growth of the trance-phenomena, which gradually came more
and more, partly through the influence of Swedcnburg, to be attributed
to the control of spirits — especially in Sweden, France, and Germany ;
the German somnambules, with their visions of heaven and their crude
mystical, or rather material, theories of the universe ; the comparatively
late introduction of mesmerism into England, where the interest roused
in it was keen indeed, but limited, its opponents being even more violent
than its supporters, and where the Spiritistic interpretation of the trance
.found little favour ; — of all these things a valuable historical account is
given, with full references to the original sources.

What chiefly strikes one is the hurry that these observers were in to come
to conclusions, and find explanations — or even to found complete theories of
life on what they had witnessed. They had, indeed, abundance of facts
before them — facts even which, unlike many of those with which
psychical research has to deal, could be repeated at will. It was easy
enough to induce visions, to obtain trance utterances, to produce— in
well-trained subjects-— " transpositions of the senses" and "phrenological"
phenomena, specific reactions to metals and magnets, and so on. But, as
we know, the experimenters generally failed to grasp one important prin-
ciple,— the efficacy of suggestion ; and for want of this much of their work
is useless. Now, as Dr. Bramwell remarks {Proceedings Vol. XII., p. 224)
and as Mr. Myers especially insists upon {Human Personality, Chapter V.),
" suggestion " is not an explanation, but merely a formula (like many other
so-called explanations); but it is now recognised to be a formula in-
dispensable to any rational interpretation of hypnotism. The history
of animal magnetism shows us, then, t\\e imperative necessity of sus-
pending our judgment on a science still in so rudimentary a stage as
psychical research, lest we, too, should be wandering uselessly in a
labyrinth, and shutting our eyes all the time to some clue which may be
lying close at our feet.

Early records of clairvoyance and thought-transference are next treated
of, with critical discussions of some of the best evidence, The careful
reader of this early evidence (to be found in the Zoi&t an<J elsewhere)

unconsciously.

394

Alice Johnson.

[PABT

will probably agree with Mr. Podmore in thinking it inconclusive. The
experimenters, as a rule, made little or no allowance for hyperesthesia
and heightened intelligence in the trance, or for subconscious interpreta-
tions by their subjects of slight indications unconsciously given by
themselves* The possibilities of codes and of conjuring were not taken
much account of, and the records generally were kept with little care.
There remain, however, a certain number of good cases, to which weight
may fairly be allowed, since they have been reinforced later by evidence
more up to modern requirements. Among these, Mr. Podmore gives a
prominent place to the remarkable trance utterances of Oahagnet's subject,
Adele Maginot (already described in his article in Proceedings Vol XTV\,
p. 50), the only one of the early sensitives whom he thinks worthy to
be compared with Mrs. Piper.

He passes on next to the early cult of mesmerism in America. Here
the subject was chiefly taken up by persons of little or no scientific
education, with the result that the more extravagant theories of phrenology
and nerve-fluids were carried to great extremes and set forth in barbar-
ous systems of nomenclature.

The mesmerised subjects soon developed into trance mediums, of whom
Andrew Jackson Davis, the Poughkeepsie seer, was the most famous. His
"Harmonial Philosophy" was expounded in a series of lectures given
during trance, and afterwards published. These " Revelations n deal with
the evolution of the universe,— or, as Davis preferred to call it, the
Univerccdum, — and show a curious mixture of arrogance and ignorance.
Mr. Podmore gives a few instances of the "scientific" statements made
— e.g. the description of the ichthyosaurus inhaling through an adipose
branch* (n'c) an atmosphere which consisted of carbon, nearly counter-
balanced by oxygen. Of his philosophy, we are not after this surprised
to hear that its meaning is " elusive beyond the tolerated usage of
philosophers." Yet bis work shows traces of certain qualities which may
partly account for the extraordinary popularity it achieved. He had
clearly been much influenced by Fourierism and Sweden borgianiam ; he
had realised " something of the orderly progression from the primaeval
fire mist ; something of the unity in complexity of the monstrous world ;
something, too, of the social needs of his time and of ours — the waste,
the injustice, the manifold futilities and absurdities involved in the present
stage of economic evolution. . , . He could appreciate the bigness of
the ideas with which he dealt, and in a semi-articulate, barbarous fashion,
could make other people appreciate them too."

But his fame is chiefly to be attributed to the "Rochester knocking*,*
which formed the next epoch in the movement, and were regarded by
Davis and his followers as the fulfilment of his prophecy of freer spirit-
intercourse with earth.

The history of the originators of these knockings — the Fox sisters — and

sir host of followers and imitators, given in full in Book LL, needs no
~ment here. Copious extracts are given from original sources

XLV.]

Bedew.

395

of the best evidence for the "physical phenomena" produced by these
mediums ; and it is shown how far that evidence falls short of what is
required. " To the reader of to-day " (says Mr. Podmore, Vol. L, p. 249,
and few would probably be prepared to contradict the assertion) "the
mere statement of such belief on such grounds may well appear preposter-
ous. Logical grounds for the belief — as logic is understood in the modern
world — were clearly wanting. But the matter should not on that account
be summarily dismissed as a pale recrudescence of mediaeval superstition.
For which of us is in better case? The causes of belief in the last
analysis are not logical. It should not be overlooked that, in the present
instance, the men who believed, if not of high intellectual distinction, had
at least proved themselves capable, and had won more or less reputation
amongst their fellow-citizens as merchants, preachers, university pro-
fessors, physicians, lawyers, legislators, and men of science ; that many of
them had embraced such belief when still in the prime of life and the
ripeness of their judgment ; that the same beliefs are held by a large
number of persons, even at the present day. We may feel assured that
in one form or another the belief in such marvels, as it has revived agaiu
and again in the past, will manifest itself again and again in generations
to come ; and history shows that those who sneer at such credulity with-
out attempting to understand its causes, are perhaps themselves not the
least likely to fall victims, precisely because they do not understand."

As an aid to such understanding, the author gives a graphic account
of the American milieu, in which the cult first grew and flourished (Vol.
L, p. 208, et seq.). "It was in the conditions of a new and rapidly
expanding civilisation, and perhaps in the special genius of the American
people, that the explanation must be sought . . . We find a nation
in whom the standard of popular education and intelligence was much
higher than in England, and probably most other European countries at
the same date. But this very diffusion of education was in some aspects
mischievous. In the older civilisations the world of ideas is still an
oligarchy, with a constitution to some extent fixed and defined. There
are recognised standards and precedents for the guidance of thought in
every department. But in the American Republic of fifty years ago, every
man claimed the right to think for himself, and to think as extravagantly
and inconsequently as he chose. . . . Speculation [had] a freedom which
would have been impossible in a more settled society. . . . Outside the
few large cities [there was] an immense fringe of semi-rural 4 townships,'
carved out of the wilderness but yesterday, and filled with an enthusiastic
horde of pioneers, who had learned to read and to think from men, or as
we have just seen, from children,1 scarcely better trained and equipped
than themselves. . . . There was inevitably expended on the problems of
life a large amount of vigorous but crude and undisciplined thinking ; and

1 The Rev. J. B. Ferguson, a prominent spiritualist of the time, at the age of thirteen
conducted a school at one end of a log house ; a shoemaker, who worked at his trade
at the other end, holding himself in readiness to help in keeping order.

396

Alice Johnson.

[PAJff

the results stand on record now in the history of various American religious
epidemics, of American Socialisms, of American phrenology, of crusades
against alcohol, tobacco, pork," etc. Socialism especially seems to have
been most intimately bound up with spiritual ism. What was attractive in
the uew creed was its humanitarian and religious side, its appeal to the
liberal instinct in all departments of thought and feeling, its claim to
provide men with a satisfying solution of the most vital problems. " The
strong impulse (Vol. I., p. 225) which transformed the tricks of mischievous
children .... into the beginnings of a new gospel of hope and freedom
proceeded from men like Warren Chase and John Murray Spear, full of
crude but sincere aspirations for the bettering of the world ; men whose
eyes were often blinded by the very splendour of their distant ideals to
all that was sordid aod contemptible in the present. There were many
men of the same type who were at that very time labouring for the
abolition of negro slavery. . . . Many of [these Spiritualists] shared
with the Socialists and reformers their large enthusiasms and their
generous incapacity to see the trickeries and mean egotisms which sur-
rounded them."

The follies and extravagances associated with the movement were
indeed obvious enough, as may be seen from the instances given by Mr.
Podmore. But he is careful to point out — and this is what makes his
history of value — that all these absurdities were mere excrescences on
the movement, and not an essential part of it. The main body of
.Spiritualists repudiated them, and though they received the physical pheno-
mena credulously enough, they regarded them chiefly as signs — not as
evidences — of a spiritual force. It was on the mental phenomena that they
relied, — the indications of intelligence in the raps ; the trance-utterances
and visions ; the doctrines that in many respects harmonised with their
previous beliefs, and at their best had nothing positively repugnant to
ordinary common-sense. "The special characteristic of the Spiritualist
movement from the beginning has been its democratic character. There
has been neither recognised leader nor authoritative statement of creed.
This characteristic again gave breadth, tolerance, and expansiveness to
the movement, which made it unique among religious revivals, and
rendered it possible for the new belief to combine with almost any pre-
existing system of doctrine" (Vol. L, p. 299).

This too great elasticity and plasticity — this "anaemic optimism" — had,
however, its drawbacks. The philosophy and religion of that early school
of Spiritualism cannot appeal to cultivated thinkers of to-day. The
philosophy is essentially materialistic, and the religion essentially parochial.
"The world [which the spirits] present to our view (Vol. I., p. 302) is
a strictly material world, developing by processes of material evolution
towards an unknown end. There is no mystery about their teaching.

only attenuated matter ; the other world a counterpart of this ;
universe an endless series of beings like ourselves. Their view
the product of common-sense, the common -sense of

Digitized by Google

Review.

397

the ordinary uninstructed man. . . . There is rarely any hint of deeper
insight The problems of Space and Time, of Knowing and Being, of
Evil and Good, of Will and Law, are hardly even recognised. Common-
sense is not competent for these questions ; and in so far as the Spiritualist
scheme fails to take account of them, it falls short of being a Theology,
or even an adequate Cosmology. But such as it is, though it makes no
appeal to the higher imagination, and ignores the deeper mysteries of
life, it has for nearly two generations satisfied the intellectual needs and
the emotional cravings of hundreds of thousauds of votaries. And its
followers cau boast that"— they have the qualities of their defects —
" throughout that period they have shown a sympathy for opinions
differing from their own, and a tolerance for their opponents, unique in
the history of sects called religious."

In 1852 the new ideas first penetrated into England through the visit
of an American medium, Mrs. Hayden. Up to that time, such "clair-
voyance" as had been found associated with the mesmeric trance had
not as a rule received the Spiritualistic interpretation. An epidemic
.of table-turning now set in, answers to questions being obtained by
tilts or by raps at particular letters as the questioner ran his finger
•along an alphabet. The results were received with much greater scepticism
in England than they had been in America. G. H« Lewes, e.g., showed
how he could get any answer he wished for through the medium's
observation of the way he hesitated at the appropriate letters, and others
noticed that she could only succeed when the alphabet was in her view.
Braid again, and afterwards Faraday, proved that the table might be
moved with entire unconsciousness on the part of the agents. The English
mesmerists in general, however, adopted table-turning with enthusiasm,
.finding in the supposed vital or " electro-odycal " force that produced it
a confirmation of their theories of Animal Magnetism. On the other
hand the practice was violently attacked by a group of Evangelical
clergy, , who attributed the movements to Satanic agency.

II. The So-called Physical Phenomena.

At this period the " physical phenomena" exhibited by most mediums
were sporadic and simple — raps, spirit-lights, and a rudimentary form
of slate-writing, as practised by Miss Marshall The rapid growth of
spiritualism is to be attributed rather to the extraordinary outburst of
automatic activity — visions, trance-speaking, writing and drawing — that
next took place, and which excited much more interest in its adherents.
The literature of the time is chiefly concerned with these, and the physical
phenomena are generally passed over with such remarks , as that of Mrs.
de Morgan that " instances of tables rising from the floor to the height
of three or four feet are so well attested" that it is hardly necessary
to refer to them.

In 1860, however, the movement entered upon a new phase, in

Digitized by Google

398

Alice Johnson.

[part

consequence of what Mr. Pod more describes as the American Invasion, —
the visit of a long succession of American mediums, the most prominent
of whom was Home, to England. Professional mediiunship had now
become highly developed, and the physical phenomena were much more
complicated and varied than before. Descriptions are given of typical
performances of the principal mediums of this period, and of the successful
imitation of many of them by conjurers ; also of many exposures and
discoveries of fraud. Mr. Pod more of course fully admits that to prove
trickery in some cases is not to prove it in all, and that it is conceivable
that a medium might sometimes cheat and at other times produce genuine
phenomena ; but he contends that, apart from the evidence presented
by Home's seances, no presumption of a new physical agency is established
by the records of these mediums.

With regard to the general method of dealing with evidence on all
these subjects — the mental as well as the physical phenomena— one diffi-
culty is that the accounts are always more or less ambiguous, because the
recorder unconsciously assumes in the reader a certain degree of familiarity
with the circumstances. Any one who has made a serious attempt to
give a really accurate description of a complicated event will know how
difficult it is to avoid using some expression which may legitimately
be misinterpreted by a reader. And the witnesses here dealt with are
often little practised either in observing or describing. The question
then constantly arises : when a passage or an event is susceptible of
two or more interpretations, which ought we to take?

When this question arises in the course of a scientific research into
any alleged new fact or principle, the authenticity of which is disputed,
every one agrees that we should invariably take the less favourable
interpretation, — that the burden of proof lies throughout on those who
attempt to establish the new fact or principle.

It is because psychical research is hardly yet recognised as a branch
of science — even by psychical researchers — that this method is so
grudgingly admitted in its case. People cannot get away from the idea
that we are investigating the characters of the witnesses rather than
the events occurring in their presence. Of course the character of the
witness is one factor in the evidence ; and if our primary object were
to determine whether a witness or a medium was an honest person, it
would not be out of place to exercise charity of judgment. But the
question of the probity of witnesses is here a purely secondary one, and
concerns us merely as bearing on the question of the authenticity of
the facts. In judging the latter, it cannot be too strongly insisted on
that we are bound always to take the most unfavourable interpretation.

Mr. Podmore has faithfully followed this principle, with the result
that his book is an admirable example of scientific method, and will
no doubt be fiercely attacked on that score.

It must further be admitted that in his lighter moments he sometimes
allows himself to indulge in humorous gibes, which add to the literary

Digitized by Google

XLV.]

399

form of the narrative, but are hardly calculated to conciliate opponents.
His more serious utterances, however, show no lack of sympathy or
respect for those who differ from him in opinion ; for instance, his
description of the early American spiritualists, some part of which has
already been quoted, and the following passage in reference to the physical
phenomena :

(Vol. II., p. 141) "The dealings of science with spiritualism form
an instructive chapter in the history of human thought. Not the least
instructive feature of the chronicle is the sharp contrast between
the tone and temper of those men of science who, after examination,
accepted, and of those who, with or without examination, rejected the
evidence for the alleged physical phenomena. Those who held themselves
justified in believing in a new physical force — for De Morgan, Crookes,
and other scientific converts did not at the outset, nor in some cases at
all, adopt the Spiritualist belief proper— showed in their writings a
modesty, candour, and freedom from prepossession, which shine the more
conspicuously by comparison with the blustering arrogance of some of the
self -constituted champions of scientific orthodoxy."

After a most careful examination of the subject, however, he comes to
the conclusion (Vol. II., p. 182) that "generally, the strongest evidence
yet considered for the genuineness of any of these manifestations falls far
short of the standard of proof which is required before any such claim
can be admitted." He brings forward two general objections to the accept-
ance of the marvels. (1) If the physical effects claimed to have been
produced are not due to known physical causes, we have to assume not
one new force capable of acting upon matter, but several, because the
effects are of so many different kinds.

This, of course, is a merely a priori objection, and as such is liable to
be upset by further discoveries. Readers who are interested in the
question may be referred to an extremely ingenious speculation in Mr.
Myers's Human Personality, VoL II., pp. 530-543, as to how a force or
entity, analogous to Clerk Maxwell's Demons in the power of dealing
with molecules as we deal with masses of matter, might produce many
of the alleged kinds of phenomena.

Yet (adds Mr. Myers, op. cit. p. 543) "it is to 'will power* that the
communicating spirits themselves ascribe their achievements ; to some
mode of operation quite unexplained, but even more direct, more funda-
mental, than those imagined molecular powers which I cited to show how
men who believed that no 'demon1 existed, found it necessary to invent
one."

(2) Mr. Podmore's second objection is much more serious, since it relates
to the nature of the actual facts. "It is briefly this: The annals of
Spiritualism offer no physical phenomena which do not, in the last
analysis, depend on the experimenter's unaided senses for their observa-
tion, and on his memory for their record.1* Sir William Crookes at
the outset of his researches laid down certain rules to which he thought

400

Alice Johnson.

[PAH

scientific proof of a new physical force should conform (see bit
Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism pp. 6-7) viz., that the effects
produced should not depend for their evidence on simple observation,
but should be capable of being registered by scientific instruments, sad
measured and tested by scientific tests, so contrived as to be proof
against fraudulent manipulati°n ; e.g. the passage of an object into s
hermetically sealed tube.

The experiments which come nearest to satisfying these conditions
are, no doubt, those of Sir William Crook es himself with Home,
especially the experiments in the alteration in weight of a board. In
these experiments, one end of the board rested on a table and the other
was supported by a spring balance. Home placed his fingers on the end
on the table and "willed" the board to become heavier or lighter; the
variations in weight being recorded by an automatic register. Mr.
Podmore suggests that the effect might possibly have been produced
by the use of a dark thread with a loop attached to some part of the
apparatus — perhaps the hook of the spring balance — and the ends
fastened, say, to the knees of Home's trousers (he gives instances of
tricks performed by similar means). We can only say that the possibility
of this particular trick does uot seem to have occurred to the experi-
menters (of course not even a conjurer can be expected to be familiar
with all possible conjuring tricks), and that the conditions of the seances,
as described, do not exclude it. A similar explanation is suggested for
the movements of a lath and some other small objects at the seances.

But to suggest a possible explanation of an event is not to prove that
it occurred in the way suggested, and Mr. Podmore adds (VoL II., p.
243) : " It is not easy to see how the investigators . . . could have
been deceived, and repeatedly deceived, by any device of the kind
suggested ; and if we find ourselves unable to accept Mr. Crookes'
testimony, we are guided to an adverse decision less perhaps by any
defects which have been demonstrated in the particular evidence here
presented than by that general presumption against the operation of
the supposed new physical energy which . . . inevitably follows from
an analysis of all the cognate evidence accumulated down to the present
day." The evidence for Sir W. Crookes' experiments may not be perfect,
but it is undoubtedly very good. If there were plenty of other evidence
of the same kind as good, the cumulative effect would be great indeed.
It is really because the good evidence is so slender in amount that
cautious persons may hesitate to build on it.

The evidence for Home's phenomena is poor enough apart from that
of Sir W. Crookes. It must be remembered that he had been practising
as a medium for some twenty years before these sittings, and though
he was never actually exposed, his sitters generally seem to have
i massed no tests on him, and there are many circumstances in the

-*hich point to some kind of trickery. The reports, e*g^ of his
v^ I., p. 244, and Vol. IL, pp. 263-4) suggest that he

XLV.]

Review.

401

was trying to deceive his sitters in the dark by making them think that
he was floating in the air when he was really supported by normal means.
There is also evidence that illusions, and even hallucinations (see Vol. II.,
p. 268), were fairly frequent at his seances, and as Mr. Podraore says,
this may account for many alleged phenomena.

The objection generally offered to this explanation is based on the
supposition that it implies some kind of hypnotic or abnormal condition
on the part of the hallucinated sitter, whereas sitters as a rule remain
in a normal condition throughout a seance. But hallucinations are often
experienced in a normal condition ; just as suggestions are often success-
fully imposed by medical hypnotists on patients in a normal waking
state : and it seems possible that part of a successful medium's equipment
depends on a similar unexplained power of influencing people in an
anusual way, — something that transcends the skill of a conjurer much
as the hypnotist's power of suggestion transcends that of the ordinary
doctor.

Besides the instances given in the text of an apparent power of this
kind, we may refer to a remarkable account published by Dr. Gibotteau
in the Annates des Sciences Psychiques (Sept.-Oct. and Nov.-Dec., 1892)
of hallucinations imposed — perhaps telepathically and certainly without
verbal suggestions — on himself and one of his friends by a peasant
woman, the daughter of a reputed witch.

The section ou physical phenomena concludes with two of the most
interesting chapters in the book, entitled "Automatism" and "Dream
Consciousness," containing an analysis of the natural history of mediums
from the psychological point of view. " It would betray " (says the author,
Vol. II., p. 289) "a very inadequate conception of the nature of the
movement to dismiss it as merely one more instance of the exploitation
of fools by knaves. That many so-called mediums have been knaves of
a commonplace type there can of course be little question. . . . But
the typical mediums, the men or women who have risen to eminence in
their profession, would not come under any such familiar formula. If
knaves, they seem at any rate to have shared in the folly of their dupes.
It is no doubt in this fact that the secret of their power lay. The medium
succeeded in deceiving others because, wholly or partially, he at the same
time deceived himself ; and he deceived himself because, as a rule, he
was not fujly aware of what he was doing." This thesis is defended with a
profundity of knowledge and a wide and philosophic insight into human
uature ; bat it is impossible to do justice to it in the limits of a
review.

III. The Mental Manifestations.

But, as already indicated, however conclusively it may be proved that
the so-called physical phenomena afford no evidence of the action of any
physical force beyond that exerted by the human muscles, Mr. Podmore
maintains that the strength of the argument for spiritism remains

Digitized by

402

Alice Johnson.

unaffected, for this really depends on the evidence for supernormal mental
powers, as manifested in numerous cases, and pre-eminently in the case of
Mrs. Piper. Evidence of this kind is on an altogether different footing
from that for the physical phenomena, because it relates to matters much
simpler in themselves — mere utterances or writings, instead of movements
involving an indefinite number of objects besides the medium — and also
because it does not depend on continuous observation of what is going
on at the moment, but may be recorded in such a way as to be per-
manently available for study.

Granting that Mrs. Piper has supernormal powers, we come next to the
question whether telepathy from the living is adequate to explain then,
or whether we must invoke telepathy from the dead. It matters not in
the first instance whether the latter kind of telepathy consists merely of
impressions conveyed from the discarnate to the incarnate mind, or
whether it develops into a temporary fusion of the two minds — the dis-
carnate one taking the predominant part and governing the organism for
the time, according to Mr. Myers's theory of possession. We have first
to substantiate the agency of the discarnate mind in the matter, before
we need discuss its method of action.

When the case of Mrs. Piper was first discussed, it was generally
recognised that as much as possible should be explained by telepathy
from the living, before invoking other agencies ; and this for two reasons :
(1) the evidence for such telepathy is both good and abundant ; (2) the
evidence for the most obvious other alternative — telepathy from the dead
— cannot, from the nature of the case, so far as we can see at present,
ever be so good, because we only know what takes place at one end of
the telepathic chain, whereas in telepathy from the living we can gain
information as to both ends.

These are obvious — even trite — considerations ; but it is necessary to
repeat them from time to time because controversy on this subject tends
to degenerate into arguing whether telepathy from the living or from the
dead is more probable a priori. The result has been extremely unfortu-
nate. Some who advocate telepathy from the dead have so persistently
undervalued telepathy from the living as to have created, apparently, an
impression that we no longer care to have evidence for it. In the
early days of the S.P.R. the great importance of telepathy was better
understood. Mr. Balfour, for instance, in bis Presidential address, speaks
of it as "a fact (if fact it be) ... far more scientifically extraordinary
than would be the destruction of this globe by [collision with some star}.
... It is a profound mystery if it be true, or if anything like it be
true ; and no event, however startling, which easily finds its appropriate
niche in the structure of the physical sciences ought to excite half so
much intellectual cariosity as this dull and at first sight commonplace
-L~nomenon " (Proceedings Vol. X., pp. 9-10).

~t from the urgent necessity of learning more about telepathy on
intrinsic importance, it is, I am inclined to think,

Digitized by

XLV.]

Review.

403

along this Hoe that our best chance lies of proving personal immortality.
" Whether or not," says Mr. Podmore, (Vol. II., p. 359) " the conditions of
another world permit its denizens to hold halting communication with
those here is a question of slight and transitory import if we have it in
our power to demonstrate, from its own inherent properties, that the life
of the soul is not bound up with the life of the body." He refers to Mr.
Myers's view that the transcendental powers of the subliminal self afford
evidence of its immortality ; but in one important respect he misconceives
this view, — supposing it to rest on the existence in the subliminal self
of such faculties as prevision, retrocognition, and clairvoyance, for which,
as he rightly says, the evidence is at present scanty, But Mr. Myers
explains clearly and constantly in Human Personality (which was not
published when Mr. Podmore wrote) that he regards Telepathy as the
most fundamental and important of all transcendental faculties. For
instance (VoL I., p. 8), "In the course of this work it will be my task
to show in many connections how far-reaching are the implications of
this direct and supersensory communion of mind with mind. Among
those implications none can be more momentous than the light thrown by
this discovery upon man's intimate nature and possible survival of death."
Again he says (Vol II., p. 526) that though telepathy cannot actually
prove survival, it strongly suggests it The question depends primarily on
whether it works through a physical mechanism or not, and Mr. Myers
adduces many considerations tending to show that the process is essentially
mental (see e.g. Vol. I., pp. 245-6, Vol. II., p. 195. The same view is
strongly expressed in VoL II., p. 282). The apparent unlikeness of tele-
pathic action to the action of any known physical force is also insisted
on by Mr, Balfour in his Presidential Address, quoted above (Proceedings,
VoL X., pp. 10-11).

In any case, it is sufficiently obvious that we have still a great deal to
learn on the subject, and we can all endorse Mr. Podmore's final conclusion
that the question is one of evidence : " The task before us is the patient
analysis of the existing evidence, and the attempt, preferably by direct
experiment^ to acquire new evidence on the subject."

Alice Johnson.

The Varieties of Religious Experience, A Study in Human Nature, being the
Qifford Lectures on Natural Religion, delivered at Edinburgh in 1901-2, by
William Jambs (Longmans, Green & Co., London, New York, and Bombay,
1902). Pp. xii., 534.

Psychical Research seems at length to be in a fair way of being officially
connected with psychological orthodoxy. For in his latest book, which is
sure to be at least as widely read as any of its predecessors, the greatest of
living psychologists assigns so fundamental an importance to the influence of
what the late Frederic Myers called the Subliminal, and uses it so freely and
brilliantly to explain the psychological facts he is describing, that it seems

Digitized by

404

F. C. S. Schiller.

[PABf

impossible that psychologists will be able to evade much longer the considera-
tion either of the conception or of the evidence on which it is baaed. He
readers of Professor James1 exquisite tribute to the late President of the
S.P.R. (Proceedings, Part xlii.) will indeed be familiar with his appreciation
of the subconscious factors in mental life, but even these will probably
experience some surprise at the extensive use made in the present volume
of the group of conceptions with which psychical researchers have attempted
to explore the dark corners of the human mind. Professor James9 example
does much to remove two of the chief difficulties with which the S.PJL fass
had to contend in its dealings with academic psychologists, viz: (1) that of
connecting its subjects with the ordinary topics of psychological concern, and
(2) that of finding employment for its conceptions in normal psychology.
Now it has recently been maintained by the new ' praginatist 1 school of
philosophers that to prove a doctrine useful is the first step towards proving
it true ; it supplies at least a motive for discovering and testing its 'troth,1
and even if it should turn out that it ceases to be useful and tenable beyond a
certain point, leaves it at least methodologically valuable and trne for certam
purposes. Hence it would be hard for us to exaggerate the importance of
Professor James1 proof that the doctrine of the subliminal consciousness is
useful for the purpose of describing the phenomena of the religious life.

Which being premised, we may proceed to a more detailed consideration uf
the points in Professor James1 book which seem specially relevant to the
work of the S.P.R. His aim was, he tells us, an empirical inductive descrip-
tion of " man's religious appetites,11 i.e. of the accounts given of their religious
experiences by a large number of (more or less) literary persons — institu-
tional religions, statistics, and the sociological attitude in general beinj?
excluded — and within its limits forms an extraordinarily brilliant and
immensely suggestive study of its subject. Even apart from its special
bearing on Psychical Research, I do not know what recent philosophic book
could be more strongly recommended to lovers of good literature.

The first obstacle in his path which Professor James has to clear away is
the objection that his whole subject is entirely morbid and pathological, and
that personal and intimate experiences of religious truth are merely the
results of neurotic disequilibration. In the chapter on " Religion and
Neurology," Professor James gives some delightful specimens of this type of
explanation (p. 10) :

"Alfred believes in immortality so strongly, because his temperament is
so emotional. Fanny's extraordinary conscientiousness is merely a matter of
over- instigated nerves. William's melancholy about the universe is due to a
bad digestion — probably his liver is torpid. Eliza's delight in her church is
a symptom of her hysterical constitution. Peter would be less troubled about
his soul if he would take more exercise in the open-air, etc A more fully
developed example of the same kind of reasoning is the fashion, quite com-
mon nowadays among certain writers, of criticising the religious emotions by
vjng a connection between them and the sexual life. Conversion is a
of puberty and adolescence. The macerations of Saints and the

XLV.]

Review,

405

devotion of missionaries are only instances of the parental instiuct of self-
sacrifice gone astray. For the hysterical nun starving for natural life Christ
is but an imaginary substitute for a more earthly object of affection.
Medical materialism finishes up Saint Paul by calling his vision on the road
to Damascus a discharging lesion of the occipital cortex, he being an epileptic.
It snuffs out Saint Teresa as a hysteric, Saint Francis of Assisi as a
hereditary degenerate. George Fox's discontent with the shams of his age,
and his pining for spiritual veracity, it treats as a symptom of a disordered
colon. Carlyle's organ-tones of misery it accounts for by a gastro-duodenal
catarrh. . . . And medical materialism then thinks that the spiritual
authority of all such personages is successfully undermined."

To all this the reply is simple. All these methods seek to discredit the
value of a thing by appealing to its origin. But though a suspicious origin
may render us cautious about a thing, it is after all with its value when it
has come about that we are really concerned. A truth discovered when the
blood was at 103°F. would be just as true and valuable as when it was at
98° F., and no one thinks of discrediting the products of the arts or the
natural sciences "by showing up their authors' neurotic constitution."
Whatever occasion a subject may give us to air our prejudices, the last
criterion always is empirical, and rests on the way in which a thing works as
a whole. 44 By their fruits ye shall know them, not by their roots" (p. 20).

The bearing of this lively discussion on the whole subject of 'psychic
powers' is not far to seek. For one of the chief objections of common sense
to psychic research is the suspicious character of the personnel concerned
with it. Ghost-seers are emotional and imaginative persons whose stories
need not be believed: mediums are -neuropathic to the verge of insanity, and
whoever believes in them is a weak-miuded 4 crank.' Whenever, therefore, a
man of science or intellectual standing exhibits symptoms of interest in such
subjects, it is time to circulate well-constructed tales of his deplorable lapse
from sanity.1

To all this all who are exposed to similar charges may henceforth reply in
Professor James' words. It may be very extensively true that the avowed
44 psychics " are persons whose mental (and even moral) health leaves a good
deal to be desired. But then the social atmosphere is at present still more
unfavourable to the cultivation, than to the study, of psychic powers. And
the ignorance which envelopes the subject is still so dense that it needs
unusual courage to take the risks which their cultivation may involve.
Hence those in whom psychic powers are combined with superior and well-
balanced minds, capable of efficient self-control, will naturally shrink from
cultivating, or at least from divulging them. It will only be in the weaker
minds that these phenomena will burst forth uncontrollably, and add to the
distrust with which such powers have always been regarded. And yet all the
time these powers might really be extremely valuable, and as innocuous,
when properly understood and regulated, as e.g. musical gifts. And

1 With hardly an exception all the leading members of the S.P.R. have, to my
certain knowledge, been subjected to this^ form of martyrdom.

Digitized by Google

406

F. C. S. Schiller.

[part

secondly even if psychics had the defects of their qualities and it were troe
that a connection between psychic temperament and insanity could be made
out, similar to the alleged connection between genius and insanity, it might
still be useful and we might still ask : " What then is more natural than
that this temperament should introduce one to corners of the universe,
which your robust Philistine type of nervous system, forever offering its
biceps to be felt, thumping its breast, and thanking Heaven that it hascrt
a single morbid fibre in its composition, would be sure to hide forever fro©
its self -satisfied possessors ? " (p. 25.)

In his chapter on the "Reality of the Unseen" Professor James quotes
cases (p. 61-2) from the Journal of the S.P.& and from Phantasms of the
Living to prove the reality of the immediate experience of an unseen
presence, which appears so often to assume a specially religious form.

Into his account of "the religion of heal thy -ni in deduces," Professor James
inserts a very sympathetic description (which will doubtless be no end of s
shock to many professorial pedants) of the ' mind-cure ' movement, declaring
it to be " the one original American contribution to philosophy." It is, of
course, diametrically opposed to science, in that it assumes that things
operate by personal forces and for the sake of individual ends, instead of
being the results of impersonal and universal formulas. Yet both appeal to
experience for verification. And the funny thing is that experience, in a
measure, verifies both. Nor must this success of mind-cure be wet-blanketed
by the phrase ' suggestion,' which has become merely the scientific slang for
' apperoeiving ' the facts. It is better to admit frankly that both are
" genuine keys for unlocking the world's treasure house to him who can use
either of them practically" (p. 122), and to hold that "the universe is a
more many-sided affair than any sect, even the scientific sect, allows for.*3

Professor James adds in an interesting appendix a friend's case in which a
visit to a mental healer, in spite of his disbelief, started a turn for the better
in a critical condition of his health. This he explains, very much like Pro-
fessor James (p. 125), as due to his "receiving telepathically and upon a
meutal stratum quite below the level of immediate consciousness, a healthier
and more energetic attitude, receiving it from another person whose thought
was directed upon me with the intention of impressing the idea of thus
attitude upon me." He admits that his trouble was of a nature which
would be classified as nervous rather than organic, but thinks that the
dividing line is an arbitrary one, as the nerves control the whole internal
economy. Hence he is on the whole "inclined to think that the healing
action, like the morbid one, springs from the plane of the normally uncon-
scious mind."

It is, however, when he reaches the subject of " Conversion " that Pro-
fessor James appeals most decisively to the ideas with which the labours of
Myers have familiarized the readers of these Proceedings. Conversion is
most probably connected with the possession of a subconscious subliminal, or
transmarginal self, in which the motives deposited by the experiences of life
u bated, and which, if very active, may even produce sudden and

XLV.]

Review,

407

seemingly inexplicable changes. "I cannot but think," he says (p. 233 X
"that the most important step forward that has occurred in psychology since
I have been a student of that science is the discovery, first made in 1886,
that, in certain subjects at least, there is not only the consciousness of the
ordinary field, with its usual centre and margin, but an addition thereto in
the shape of a set of memories, thoughts, and feelings which are extra-
marginal and outside of the primary consciousness altogether, but yet must
be classed as conscious facts of some sort, able to reveal their presence by
unmistakable signs. I call this the most important step forward because,
unlike the other advances which psychology has made, this discovery has
revealed to us an entirely unsuspected peculiarity in the constitution of
human nature. No other step forward which psychology has made can
proffer any such claim as this."

From this subliminal region, then, proceed not only c »n versions, but all
sorts of automatic "uprushes" or 44 explosions " of ideas elaborated outside
the field of ordinary consciousness, motor impulses, obsessive ideas, unaccoun-
table caprices, delusions, and hallucinations of hypnotic or hysterical subjects.
The religious cases must in the first instance submit to formal psychological
classification along with these — as indeed the religious admit, after their
fashion, when they dispute as to the divine or diabolical origin of these
phenomena. This classification, however, leaves untouched their value, and
the question of the ultimate origin of the beneficial influences. It is con-
ceivable (p. 242) that 44 if there be higher spiritual agencies that can directly
touch us, the psychological condition of their doing so might be our possession
of a subconscious region which alone should yield access to them. The
hubbub of the waking life might close a door which in the dreamy Sub-
liminal might remain ajar or open."

The 44 mystical " consciousness is all too familiar to ordinary men as an
effect of chemicals, the sway of alcohol over mankind being 44 unquestionably
due to its power to stimulate the mystical faculties of human nature"
(p. 387). Thus 44 the drunken consciousness is one bit of the mystic
consciousness," which, however, is still more powerfully stimulated by
nitrous oxide. Its key-note is invariably a reconciliation in which all the
oppo8ites iti the world are melted into unity in such a way that the higher
aud better species appears as itself the genus. The theoretic importance of
these mystic states is (p. 423) that 44 they break down the authority of the
non-mystical or rationalistic consciousness based upon the understanding and
the senses alone. They show it to l>e only one kind of consciousness. They
open out the possibility of other orders of truth." And yet religious
mysticism is only the better half of the subject Side by side with it we
may find in delusional insanity or paranoia a sort of diabolical mysticism,
exhibiting the same psychological symptoms, but with a^^dmistic trend,
and also springing 44 from that great subliminal or transtr ^Iregio
which science is beginning to admit the existence, but o*
really knowu " (p. 426).

In his last lecture Professor James finally inqu

Digitizl

408

F. C. & Schiller.

[part

underlying all this religious experience and returns to the question, reserved
before, as to the ultimate source of the subliminal inspiration and of the
immediate assurance it seems to give of a communion with diviner powers
which effect our salvation. In the last resort the whole of religions
experience seems to rest on " the fact that the conscious person is continuous
with a wider self, through which saving experiences come v (p. 515X and
this " is literally and objectively true as far as it goes."

Beyond this common result of all religions we pass into the realm
of hypotheses and " over-beliefs," as to which Professor James is laudably
reluctant to dogmatize. But he personally believes that the infiltration of
spiritual energy which the religious seem to experience is no merely
subjective illusion, but a real fact For notwithstanding the studied
impersonal ism of our scientific assumptions, it is only in our personal
life that we comprehend real fact and transcend abstractions. If therefore
the abstract point of view of Science be naturalism, then Professor
James is a supernaturalist.

But supernatural ism is of two kinds, refined and uuiversalistic, or eras*
and " piece-meal." The former, which has been excogitated by many of the
transcendentalist theologians and philosophers of the day, repudiates, not
merely miracle, but every action of the supernatural on the naturaL
Nothing is altered in the natural course of events by the existence of its
" God * or 44 Absolute." Its " God " neither answers prayers, nor helps men,
nor aims at ends, nor gives ground for moral hope. He is simply a point of
view — the point of view of the Whole — and beyond affording a peculiar satis-
faction to those who like to take that point of view, he makes not tht
slightest difference to anybody or anything. This universal istic super-
naturalism, however, Professor James thinks, is practically a surrender to
naturalism. We can have no use for a " God " who makes no difference :
" our difficulties and our ideals are all piece-meal affairs, but the Absolute
can do no piecework for us ; so that all the interests which our poor souls
compass raise their heads too late" (p. 522). Hence Professor James
pleads for " a candid consideration of piece-meal supernatural ism * and
believes that "a complete discussion of all its metaphysical bearings will
show it to be the hypothesis by which the largest number of legitimate
requirements are met" (p. 523).

A real God, therefore, must produce real effects, and so in our communings
with the wider self " work is actually done upon our finite personality ; for
we are turned into new men, and consequences in the way of conduct follow
in the natural world upon our regenerative change. But that which
produces effects within another reality must be termed a reality itself, so I
feel as if we had no philosophic excuse for calling the unseen or mystical
world unreal " (p. 516).

To identify this real power with an absolute world-ruler is, however, a
very considerable over-belief. All that religious experience unequivocally
testifies to is that there is something larger than our conscious selves,
continuous with us and friendly to our ideals. " Any thing larger will do,

XLV.]

Review.

409

if only it be large enough to trust for the next step. It need not be infinite,
it need not be solitary. It might conceivably even be only a larger and
more godlike self, of which the present self would then be but the mutilated
expression, and the universe might conceivably be a collection of such selves,
of different degrees of inclusiveness, with no absolute unity realized in
it at all 99 (p. 525).

Professor James concludes with a promise to work out these hints of a
pluralistic nietaphysic in a subsequent book, which will doubtless prove as
instructive as the present Meanwhile we may add a few admiring
comments to this theory of the cardinal importance for religion of sub-
conscious inspiration. And first of all attention should be drawn to a slight
change of terminology. Professor James often prefers the term trans-
marginal to subliminal. The reason is clear : the preposition sub- becomes
awkward when applied to what is envisaged as a source of higher inspiration.
It is better not to seem to beg questions by denominating it what lies
across (trans) the border. Perhaps as a compromise the term transliminal
might be found convenient.

In the second place I find myself, with all deference, unable altogether to
follow Professor James in his appreciation of the mystical states of
consciousness. At least I should contend strongly that whether arrived at
by rational means or not, all the products of our mental life should be
subjected to rational tests, and rejected if they turn out to be essentially
irrational and unprofitable. Now, on Professor James1 own showing, this
objection applies strongly to almost all the mystical experiences. In
point of psychological form their nearest congeners are to be found in
drunkenness and insanity. As regards psychological content they are quite
unstable aud insecure. Even though for the moment the mystic's assurance
may seem ineffably to surpass the confidence to be attained by the slow
methods of ordinary reasoning, yet it is subject to eclipses as sudden and
inexplicable as the effulgences with which it dazzled the soul. Professor
James must surely have come across some of the cases (of which the poet
Oowper is a well-known literary example) in which the conviction of being
" damned " alternated with that of being "saved," or where the experience
of mystical visions did not preclude a subsequent lapse into agnosticism and
disbelief. 1 For these reasons to a critically-minded mystic the question of the
cognitive value of his psychical experiences must be a great puzzle, and
a fortiori they must seem dubious to non-mystics. Regarded logically their
revelations are pervaded by hopeless contradictions, as when the highest
knowledge is described as the negation of knowledge, and the highest
consciousness as the extinction of self -consciousness (cp. p. 401). And
Professor James7 generosity surely reaches an extreme when he quotes
a dreary farrago of absolute nonsense to show that "many mystical
scriptures are indeed little more than musical compositions" (p. 421).

Metaphysically again mysticism seems to point iu the wrong direction.

1 The answers to the Questionnaire of the American Branch contain several such
document*.

410

F. C. S. Schiller.

[part

Professor James admits that the theoretic drift of " classical religions
mysticism is in the direction of an enervating pantheistic monism and s
peculiarly flabby optimism." Both of these doctrines I agree with Professor
James in regarding as false, and both could be substantiated, if at all, only
by rigorously rational demonstration. The mystics content themselves with
affirming them on grounds so unintelligible that they can only add contempt
to the dislike for them one had previously entertained. Finally, from
a practical and moral point of view, the fruits of mysticism seem to be
mainly evil. It seems to be an even chance that the 4 religions * mystic will
set himself wholly above morality ; and even if lie does not in this respect
imitate his alcohol-imbibing and drug-inhaling confreres, his ecstasies
produce nothing of value for practical life. Judged, therefore, by the
pragmatist " standards of Professor James, mysticism, wherever it crops
up, in Hinduism, in Buddhism, in Neoplatonism, in Catholicism, in Whit-
mania, must be pronounced worthless as such and devoid of rational
authority over us. Even the theoretic gain of mysticism, viz. the knowledge
that the ordinary consciousness does not exhaust the whole of experience,
may be obtained more simply from the facts of dream, trance, etc The
important question as to all such states is not as to their existence, but as to
their practical value and ratioual significance.

Lastly as regards the value of the 44 transmarginal self* for the purpose of
psychological explanation. / cannot see that, apart from psychical rtsearek,
it has any. If it merely meant negatively that the mainsprings of our
mental life were not to be found in consciousness, and implied that every-
thing beyond was unknowable, it would not advance science. It would
merely add one to the technical phrases whereby baffled philosophers and
theologians have tried to gloze over their failures to satisfy our demands for
knowledge. And it would deserve to be cast on the metaphysical rubbish-
heap together with the 4 Unknowable*' and lA bsolutes 9 of other 4 thinkers.' But
Professor James clearly means his " transmarginal * to be something more,
to be a field for scientific research (p. 51 1), in which our Society would have
a prescriptive claim to a prominent part. What the transmarginal really is
is what we have to find out. And just in proportion as our research is
successful, it is evident that what was beyond the margin will be included
in it, that the soul will extend her borders, and that our whole consciousness
will be augmented and glorified by the assimilation of what is now
44 subconscious."

The practical value of Professor James1 confession of faith in the reality
of our spiritual intercourse with higher powers I take to be very similar.
Regarded as a mere personal ' over-belief ' it is of course psychologically
interesting, but its logical value is slight. The true import of the doctrine
however lies in the suggestion it conveys that such personal religious
experiences are not insusceptible of scientific treatment. They are now
declared to be worthy of scientific attention, and through them the light of
psychology may find access to the preserves of theological dogma, By
turning so much of a theologian Professor James may prevail on theologians

XLV.]

Review.

411

to turn psychologists. And so in the end it may come about that, as I once
suggested with reference to a similar plea of Mr. Andrew Lang's, theology
will be rendered an experimental science, and as such recover the hold over
the human mind which it now appears to have lost.

In taking leave of Professor James2 fascinating lectures I must remark on
what will seem to many a very curious fact, viz., the almost total omission
of the topic of immortality from a description of religious feelings. Professor
James7 record as a psychical researcher and lecturer on Human Immortality
is too well known to allow one to put this down to prejudice or aversion. To
me it seems rather like an unsolicited confirmation of the view that
immortality, whatever it may have been in the past, is not now an important
object of desire. However, as I am at present engaged in a statistical
inquiry into the real character and extent of this traditional craving, I can
confine my remarks to the little Professor James does say in his Postscript.
Having spoken of the necessity that a real God must make a difference, he
goes on to say (p. 524) that the first difference such a God should make would
be personal immortality. But it seems to him a point secondary to an
eternal caring for our ideals. It is however " eminently a case for facts to
testify. Facts, I think, are yet lacking to prove * spirit-return,2 though I
have the highest respect for the patient labours of Messrs. Myers, Hodgson,
and Hyslop, and am somewhat impressed by their favourable conclusions."

This interesting pronouncement of so great and sympathetic an authority
indicates perhaps how far calmly dispassionate science is disposed to go in
the present state of the evidence ; and though it may seem but little to the
more sanguine, I would bid them remember (1) that Professor James has
himself explained how a " will to believe " is justified in cases of this sort,
and how faith may legitimately outstrip knowledge, provided always that
" faith " leads to " works" which confirm it ; and (2) that proof is essentially
cumulative, and that comparatively little more of the sort of evidence
we have already succeeded in getting recorded might complete the proof
sufficiently to shift the * burden of proof ' on to those who as yet will to
disbelieve. There is plenty of scope, therefore, for energetic exertion both
in improving the evidence and in disposing the social atmosphere more
favourably towards its investigation.

Le Temple Enseveli, by Maurice Maeterlinck (Paris, 1902. Bibliotheque-
Charpentier. 3 f r. 50).

This book consists of six chapters, entitled respectively " Justice," " The
Evolution of Mystery," "The Kingdom of Matter," "The Past," "Chance,"
and " The Future." It is with the last two only that psychical research has
any particular concern.

After citing various exceptionally lucky and unlucky careers, the author
concludes that, every possible attempt having been made to explain such
obstinately repeated runs of luck by known physical and moral causes, there

F. C. S. Schiller.

412

J. £?. Piddington.

[PABT

yet remains over and above no inconsiderable number of episodes in such
lives which can only be attributed to the impenetrable will of an unknomn
though real power, call it Luck, Fate, Destiny, or what we wilL But by
whatever name we call it, this mysterious power is neither God nor Destiny ;
it is not external to ourselves, but within us.

Beneath our conscious existence, which owes obedience to our reason and
will, lies a deeper existence, stretching both into an immemorial past and
into a limitless future. M Maeterlinck calls this existence "la vie twxm
teiente? " VUrt incontinent" or " Piwxmscient" but since it is but what wt
have learnt to call the subliminal consciousness or the subconscious self
(albeit in a glorified form), and since, too, it is with the immense range
of its activities and with its occasional inrushes into the normal conscious-
ness that the writer is particularly occupied, it will make for clean***
if we render the French terms by " subconsciousness" or some similar
expression.

M. Maeterlinck knocks down " the Gods " (as he calls them) only to set up
in their stead the subconscious self, which he endows with almost divine
attributes. It is the veritable Ego, pre-existent, universal, and " probably
immortal." (We like the " probably.") It inhabits another plane of exist-
ence, where Time and Space are not For it there is no far or near, neither
past nor future, nor resistance of matter. It is omniscient and omnipotent ;
and it may not be too much, perhaps, to speak of its active principle as
the essential fluid, the ultra-violet rays of Life. Yet, although it is
probably the common possession of all men, it does not speak to the
intelligent or normal consciousness of all either with equal clearness or
frequency.

But what has this subconscious self to do with, or how can it be held
responsible for, the good or bad luck that may attend a human life ? M
Maeterlinck answers the question in this way : " An event, propitious or
disastrous, proceeding from the depths of the great eternal laws, rises up on
our path and bars it completely. There it looms, immovable, fatal, unshak-
able. With us it has no concern, it is not there for us. Its reason ditrt is
in itself and for itself alone. Us it simply does not know. It is we who
draw near it, we who, once within the range of its influence, must flee from
it or face it, circumvent or cross it I will suppose it to be an unlucky event :
a shipwreck, a fire, a thunderbolt, or death, disease, accident, or suffering in
a somewhat unusual form. It waits, invisible, blind, indifferent, a thing
complete, unchangeable, but as yet potential It exists in its entirety, but
only in the future ; while for us, whose senses adapted to the service of our
intelligence and our consciousness are so made that they perceive things only
successively in time, it is still as though it did not exist

" For the sake of greater precision, let us imagine the event in question to
be a shipwreck. The ship that needs must be lost has not yet left port ; the
rock or the wreckage that will split her in twain is sleeping peacefully
beneath the waves ; or the storm, that will not break before the month is
out, slumbers beyond our ken in the hidden places of the heaven*. Nor*

XLV.]

Review.

413

raally, if the fiat had not gone forth, and if the catastrophe had not already
taken place in the future, fifty passengers come from five or six different
countries would have embarked. But the ship bears clearly on her the
brand of fate. Perish she certainly must. And so, for months, perhaps for
years before, a mysterious selection has been at work among the travellers
who ought otherwise to have started together on the same day. Possibly
out of the original fifty twenty only embark when the time comes to weigh
anchor. Perhaps not even a single one of the fifty obeys the call of circum-
stances which would have necessitated his departure had the future disaster
not been in existence, and, may be, their places have been taken by twenty
or thirty others in whom the voice of chance does not speak with the same
strength. But with this imaginary case before us — which is merely a more
striking illustration of what is constantly happening within the narrower
range of every -day life— is it not more natural to suppose, instead of having
recourse to far-off shadowy gods, that it is our subconscious self which acts
and decides? It knows, it must know, it must see the catastrophe, for
neither Time nor Space exists for it, and the catastrophe is taking place at
the very moment beneath its eyes, even as it is taking place beneath the
eyes of the Eternal Forces. How it gives forewarning of the coming evil
matters little. Out of thirty travellers who receive warning, two or three
will have had an actual presentiment of the danger ; these are they in whom
the subconsciousness has freer play, and reaches more readily the primary
strata, obscure though they be, of the intelligent consciousness. The rest will
have no misgivings, they will rail at inexplicable delays and obstacles, they
will do their utmost to arrive in time, but start they will not. Some of
them will fall ill, miss their way, change their plans, meet with some trivial
adventure, or a quarrel, a flirtation, a lazy or an absent-minded fit will
detain them in spite of themselves. Others of them, again, will never have
dreamed of embarking on the predestined ship, although logically and fatally
she was the only one that they ought to have chosen.

" In the case of the majority, these efforts of the subconsciousness to save
them are carried out at depths so great that it will never occur to them that
they owe their life to their good luck, and they will believe in all good faith
that they never had any intention of boarding the vessel that the Powers of
the Sea had marked for their own.1'

As for the unlucky, they must not imagine that the universe is hostile to
them, but rather they should blame their own subconscious selves. " Their
unconscious soul," says Maeterlinck, " their unconscious soul does not do its
duty." And he goes on to ask : " Is it (i.e. the inefficient subconsciousness)
more awkward or less attentive ? Does it sleep in despair in the depths of a
prison more closely barred than others ? Can no act of will stir it from so
deadly a slumber?" Apparently, in M. Maeterlinck's opinion, the case is
not hopeless. Either the supraliminal consciousness (which answers to what
the author calls " la vie inteUigente? or " la volonU et Mntelligence") develops
a sufficient receptivity, or the subconsciousness a sufficient attentiveness to
the needs of its junior partner. To sum up, then, good luck depends upon an

414

J. G. Piddington.

effective, bad luck on a defective intercommunication between the eoosoew
and the subconscious strata.

The reception which this bold and novel theory is likely to meet with fn»
orthodox philosophy can hardly be favourable ; but students of the
Proceedings and Journal, and those especially who have felt the fame d
Mr. My ere1 papers on the subliminal consciousness will not be too read*
to dismiss it offhand as pure mysticism. In any case it is only posaUe
to do justice to M. Maeterlinck's conception if we consider it apart fan
his ill-chosen illustrations of shipwrecks, railway accidents, fires, etc. aa*
indeed apart from all disasters which may depend, in part at least, *
human agency ; and if we apply it to the cases of such calamities oak
as may be regarded as practically unaffected by man's intervention, u$ a
volcanic eruption. In cases of the latter class it is logically coraervabk
that the subliminal self may act, in some such way as he suggests, bv
simply preventing the person from getting within range of any partieBkr
natural catastrophe. Any supposed power of prevision, however, impl»
that the future is already fixed and is not to be influenced by hnam
will Hence the theory is self -contradictory, if applied to cases whete
the thing to be avoided may be either caused or modified through vohnv
tary human action.

But apart from this fundamental confusion of thought, which— as wfll
be seen from the extracts quoted — pervades the whole argument, it »
chiefly when we come to consider the way in which the case is presented,
and the exaggerated claims put forward on behalf of the subcoDScioas
self that we psychical researchers, with our prejudice for plain well-
attested facts, are likely to part company with M. Maeterlinck. On what
grounds of fact he relies, if indeed he pretends to proffer auy facts at
all, it is not easy to say. He would seem to have evolved his doctrine
out of his own inner consciousness, unhampered by any details of evidence,
and then to have thrown in a few generalized facts as an after-thought
He quotes no authorities ; he makes no acknowledgment of the labours
of those who have ploddingly explored the psychological fields in which
he himself runs riot. It is true that he cites the experiences of a friend,
but they are vague and unconvincing ; and in a foot-note to p. 261 he
makes some remarkable statements, which, if true, would indeed lead
strong support to his conclusions, but unfortunately there is no reason
to attach any credibility to these statements. It is worth while to trans-
late almost in full this foot-note, because it contains practically the onlj
attempt at positive evidence in support of the previsionary and premoni-
tory powers with which M. Maeterlinck endows "the unconscious soul/
The note runs thus : " It is indeed a common occurrence and worthy of
note that in the case of great catastrophes the number of victims is
usually infinitely smaller than on the most reasonable calculation of pro-
babilities one would have been led to apprehend. At the last minute a
to*' 1 exceptional circumstance has almost always kept away

y Ties two-thirds of the people menaced by the as yet in-

XXV.]

Revievi.

415

visible danger. A steamer which founders has generally many fewer
passengers on board than she would have had had she not been doomed
to sink. Two trains that run into collision, an express which falls over
a precipice, and so on, carry fewer passengers than on days when nothing
happens to them. The collapse of a bridge most frequently occurs, quite
contrary to what one would expect, just after the crowd has left it.
Unfortunately there is not the same immunity in the case of fires in
theatre* and other places of public assembly. But here, as we know, it
is not the fire, but rather the presence of an affrighted and maddened
crowd which constitutes the chief danger. On the other hand, an ex-
plosion of fire-damp takes place as a rule when there are considerably
fewer miners at work in the mine than there ought to be in the regular
course. In the same way a powder or a cartridge factory, etc., generally
explodes at a time when the majority of the workmen, who otherwise
would have inevitably perished, have gone away from the works for
some trifling, though providential, reason or other. So true is this fact
that the almost constant observation of it has resulted in a sort of familiar
stock phrase. Any day we may read in the newspapers under the items
of general news sentences like this : ' A catastrophe which might have
had terrible consequences, thanks to such and such a circumstance was
happily confined to . . . etc.* Or, again : * One shudders to think that,
had the same accident happened a minute sooner, when all the workmen,
or all the passengers, . . . etc.'"

On this flimsy foundation of newspaper snippets M. Maeterlinck would
seem to have built his theoretic edifice. The futility of the examples
quoted in this foot-note is really too obvious to be worth exposing.
Certainly, if one troubled oneself as little as the author to produce sub-
stantial evidence, or made as little allowance for mere coincidence, it
would not be difficult to make out a case for the existence of a malevolent
deity, whose special function was to cause ships and trains to be wrecked,
boilers to burst, theatres to buru at moments which promised the largest
haul of human victims. Had M. Maeterlinck deigned to consult any-
thing so prosaic as the railway annals of his own country, he would have
found in the extraordinary frequency of accidents to trains crammed with
holiday folk on Belgian jours de fSte some facts which will not square with
his fancies. Our own researches do seem to point to the possible exemption
of the subconscious self from spatial limitations, but so far they have
contributed little towards rendering probable this larger claim of freedom
from the limitations of time which M. Maeterlinck unhesitatingly makes
for it; and before such a claim can be considered, better evidence must
be forthcoming than the vague statements of this naive foot-note — state-
ments which could be verified or refuted only by means of a world-wide
«nd utterly impracticable census extending over many years.

But not content with the paucity and poverty of the positive evidence
at his disposal, M. Maeterlinck, in the last chapter of the book, LAvenir,
is candid enough to produce evidence which, so far as it goes, is un-

416

J. G. Piddington.

[PART

favourable to the possession by the subconscious self of that very faculty
of prevision on which his whole theory rests.

In this chapter he describes various visits paid by himself or his
friends to clairvoyants, fortune-tellers, mediums, palmists, etc., in Paris.
The results went to show that, whereas there was evidence of the sub-
conscious mind being able to get at past or preseut facts which were or
might have been within the knowledge of the sitter or others, there was
an entire failure to foresee and foretell the Future. And this, so far as it
goes, is in accordance with the results at present arrived at by the S.P.R.
Of all the evidence in favour of supernormal faculties hitherto collected
by the Society, the weakest by far both in quantity and quality is the
evidence for prevision.

This failure to bring forward any original or borrowed evidence of
value is all the more disappointing in the author of La Vie des Abeille*, who
in that delightful work displayed not only a gift for original scientific
research, but also the power of appreciating and marshalling the scientific
observations of others.

To this criticism, if he chanced to read it, the author might perhaps
reply in the words of Symmachus, "uno itinere non potest perveniri ad
tarn grande secretum," and that there are methods other than those of the
S.P.R. for arriving at the truth. True enough : but what is objection-
able is the attempt to combine two methods, the intuitive- mystic with
the scientific. M. Maeterlinck should have contented himself with making
his intuitive guesses at truth and not at the same time have tried to
bolster them up with slipshod pseudo-scientific generalisations.

Notwithstanding these defects, the reader cannot but feel that the
whole book is not only suggestive, but deeply interesting as the record
both of the development and of what are probably the " over-belief a n (to
use Professor William James' phrase) of an agnostic mind of wide culture
and refined sensibility.

Le Temple Enseveli has been translated into English by Mr. Alfred
Sutro. I have not seen the translation, but the Timet reviewer, while
noting the omission of the whole of the last chapter, " L'Avenir,0 and
of some passages in the first chapter, "La Justice," considers that the
translator has done his work adequately.

Une Sorciere au XVIII* Steele, Marie- Anne de la VOle, 1680 1725. Avec
une preface de Pierre de Segctr. Par Ch. de Coynart. Paris, Ltbrairk
Hachette et Cie., 1902. Price (uot stated), 3fc. 50.

The police dossiers relating to Marie-Anne and her associates were
docketed "Affaire des faux sorciers" and it is perhaps a pity that M. de
Coynart did not adopt this title for his book: for Marie- Anne was not
a sorceress at all, but an utter fraud (which many sorceresses were not);
and also, although Marie- Anne is the central figure of the "band"

J. G. PlDDINGTOK.

XLV.]

Review.

417

whose exploits form the subject of this work, she neither brought to-
gether the members of it in the first instance, nor are her dupes scarcely,
if at all, less interesting than herself.

It would be useless to attempt to give within the limits of a brief
review more than the merest outline of the contents of M. de Coynart's
book. Such, however, as like to wander along the by-paths of history,
and such as appreciate the merit of a scrupulously documents' revival of
some obscure episode of past days, will be well repaid if they consult
the full narrative.

M. de Coynart's treatment is primarily historical, and only secondarily
and incidentally psychological : yet the adventures of Marie- Anne and her
friends afford points of psychological interest deserving of our attention.
In order to appreciate them, it will be necessary to give a summary — the
barest possible, be it understood — of the events recorded by the author.

Marie- Anne de la Ville, born at Bordeaux in 1680, was the daughter
of a local lawyer of some social position but of little or no fortune.
Her mother died when she was eighteen months old, and this early loss
was perhaps responsible for her subsequent depravity. When only nine
years old, she discovered in an uncle's library several occult books,
from which she learned the traditional forms of incantation, and many
other things not calculated to have the best effect on the brain of an
imaginative child. Of a good spirit named Jassemin, who figured in
one of these mystic works, she had a hallucinatory vision ; and that the
hallucination was genuine she always maintained, nor need her word
be doubted on this point. At eleven years of age she was sent to the
Convent of the Visitation du faubourg Saint- Antoine at Paris, where
for eight years she remained. Here she probably came into contact with
Mme. Guy on, the Quietist, and to this supposed association M. de Coynart
attributes in part her later developments ; but the inference seems rather
unfair to the worthy Mme. Guy on, and Marie- Anne's early acquaintance
with occultism sufficiently explains the attraction which the subject
had for her in her maturer years.

What happened to her after leaving the convent is not precisely known,
but she seems to have been at large in Paris, and what that meant in
the 18th century is better imagined than described. When next she
is heard of, she had joined a band of treasure-seekers, which, though led
by an inferior police-officer named Divot, was composed of members
drawn from a mixture of social classes from nearly the highest to nearly
the lowest. One of the most important, by reason of his sacred calling,
was a Prior, by name Pinel ; the presence aud offices of a priest being
held indispensable to the successful raising of the devil. Marie- Anne
soon became the mistress of the Prior, and, but for short intervals when
her more than easy morals led her to seek a change, remained so during
the three years of adventure which followed ; but it is only fair to the
Prior to add that the liaison was none of his seeking, and that far from
being in collusion with Marie-Anne] he was utterly her dupe, and further-

418

J. O. Piddington,

[part

more her stauuchest friend,— a most pathetic figure, more worthy of pity
than of condemnation or contempt

The band had been in existence some seven or eight years before Marie-
Anne joined it, and in spite of the unbroken failure of its operations,
the ardour of its members had not been damped, nor had hopes of ultimate
success been abandoned. The belief was then, as in past centuries, largely
prevalent among all ranks of society that not only the natural virgin
treasure of the earth but also treasure left hidden (by man was guarded
by demons : and the aim of the band of treasure-seekers was to conjure the
demon guardians to deliver up their hoards either simply in obedience
to irresistible incantations, or in exchange for human souls. Marie- Anne
soon became the leader of the company and the prime mover in their
expeditions, because she claimed knowledge of the traditional incantations
and modus operandi, in which the other members were admittedly not
adepts.

It would be outside the scope of this review to narrate the various
aud fruitless expeditions undertaken by the company at Marie-Anne's
instigation, or to describe in detail how in face of repeated insuccess she
managed to retain the confidence and support of her companions, how
site literally worked the oracle to provide herself with creature-comforts
at the expense of her associates and particularly of the Prior (ruined
financially as well as morally by his infatuation), how she varied the
monotony of treasure-hunting with interludes of spirit communications
and simple physical phenomena, and how, in short, she ran through an
extensive repertoire of mediumistic tricks and humbugged the whole party
consistently and successfully for a period of three years. The curious
reader must be referred to the book itself, where the story is told fully
and attractively, with great lucidity and some humour.

Three points, however, merit a longer reference : (a) Some instance* of
illusion and hallucination. Four members of the baud together with
Marie-Anne were engaged on a treasure-hunt at D^Arcueil. While Marie-
Anne was (or was supposed to be) performing her lengthy incantations,
the others by way of passing the time until her- return from the scene
of operations were dining in a neighbouring inn. Two hours passed,
and the four diners, wondering at the delay, set out to see how the
sorceress was progressing ; when, to quote the official record of the Prior
PineFs evidence before M. d'Argenson, they saw "a man on horseback,
enveloped in a red cloak (although the weather was very fine). He was
about half a league distant from the said Marie-Anne, but when the
Prior and the others drew a little nearer to her, they were surprised to
see the horseman by the side of her, although a moment before he had
been very far away from her. This threw them into such a state of
astonishment that they lay on the ground in order not to see him, being
convinced that the horseman was the Spirit, who was going to maltreat

r because they had had the * temerity to watch her in spite of her
ng forbidden them to do so." Marie- Anne must have witnessed her

XLV.]

Review.

419

companions1 fright, aud guessed the cause of it : for when she rejoined
them her face and head were " covered with bruises," and her head-dress
was gone. Of course the Evil Spirit had thus wreaked his wrath on her
because the others had " broken the conditions " (to use a modern phrase),
and of course the horseman in the red cloak was none other than the
Evil Spirit himself. Another member of the party, M. de Brederodes,
gives a highly coloured account of the same scene, but the relatively sober
narrative of the Prior probably comes nearer to representing the mean
hallucinatory experience as shared by the four percipients.

Now, in her examination before M d'Argenson, Marie-Anne declared
that no such horseman had come near her. A real horseman there may
well have been, who was seen in the distance by the others and not by
Marie- Anne, but her sharp eyes would not have failed to notice him had he
really come near her. And as there was nothing to be lost or gained by
denying the story of her comrades, Marie-Anue's version is more easily
accepted than the miraculously rapid movements of the mysterious man
on horseback.

On auother occasion at Arcueil Marie-Anne had made her companions
stand in a line with their noses turued to a wall, while she with a lighted
wax -taper in her hand was going through her usual performances. The
incantations finished, she caught hold of a branch of an overhanging tree,
and shook it with all her might in order to extinguish the taper. Her
dupes described this incident to M. d'Argenson as follows : " A great
blast of wind, extraordinary for so calm a night, suddenly arose and
shook the branches and put out Marie- Anne's taper."

Once the Prior believed he had heard the Spirit prescribe certain
remedies for Marie-Anne, whereas Marie-Anne stated to M. d'Argenson
that she had merely asked for the remedies "sans contrefaire sa voix."

Another time Pin el and the others said they had seen the Spirit in
the guise of a tall man. Marie-Anne, however, when this episode was
touched on in her cross-examination declared that she had seen nothing.
It must not be supposed that these four instances exhaust the list, for
there were plenty more. The followers of Marie- Anne lived in an atmos-
phere of hallucination ; and so strained was their state of expectancy,
that any trivial incident might at any moment be translated by their
fancy into a miraculous event.

(6) The uncritical attitude of the band.

No member of the regular band, nor any of the outsiders who occasionally
witnessed Marie-Anne's performances suspected her bona fides, two un-
important exceptions apart, — unimportant because, although one individual,
a novice, said he thought the whole thing was a trick, and another,
equally new to the phenomena, mildly suggested that the Spirit's voice
was only Marie-Anne's disguised, — both very soon convinced themselves
of the genuineness of the sorceress' powers. This almost complete absence
of suspicion was due, no doubt, in part to Mile, de la Ville's cleverness ;
but unless we remember to transport ourselves back into an age when

420

J. G. Piddington.

[part

belief in magic yet widely obtained, we shall be in danger of unduly
exaggerating her powers of deception.

Nowadays people do not believe in the supernatural without, at least,
first obtaining some evidential facts (or what they consider to be such)
in order to dispel their a priori scepticism. But to the a priori credulity
of Marie-Anne's times such cautious preliminaries would have seemed
uncalled for, and to have questioned the reality of the interference of
evil spirits in human affairs would have appeared almost as ridiculous,
at least to the average man, as it would have not so many years earlier
to doubt that the sun moved round the earth.

Divot turned informer, with the result that Marie- Anne was arrested
in February, 1703. At the time of her arrest she was found to have
" une espece de sifflet " in her throat. Thanks to malingering, which quite
took in the young officer Bent to convey her to Paris, it was not until
August that she was lodged in the Bastille : whither she had been pre-
ceded by seventeen of her accomplices, or rather dupes.

The enquiry was conducted by the celebrated M. d'Argenson in person,
and lasted nearly four months. All the prisoners, except M. de Bredercxles,
were found guilty and were severely punished : Marie- Anne, the chief
culprit, being sentenced to imprisonment for life and to a perpetual diet
of bread and water. - She was imprisoned in the ITdpital, now called
the SalpStriere ; and it is permissible to fancy that had she flourished in
a happier hour, she might have figured among a crowd of sister d&raqu&*
as a patient, instead of as a prisoner, within the self-same walls.

Should any reader in the course of perusing the veracious history of
Marie- Anne de la Ville suspect that M. de Coy Dart has painted his
heroine with too black a brush, and that amidst all the admitted fraud
there may have been glimmerings of genuine psychic power, his hopes
of a possible partial rehabilitation of the sorceress' character will be
rudely dashed when he reaches the last chapter but one, which deals
with her examination before M. d'Argenson. Her avowal of fraud was
complete: and such reservations as she did attempt to make were con-
cerned not with her pretended magic but with her relations with the
Prior Pinel. The woman in her was still capable of a sense of shame,
if the charlatan was not.

The chief interest of her examination lies in the answers, in which
are directly stated, or from which can be inferred, the motives of her
fraud. They may be summarised as follows:

(1) She honestly believed, at least at first, in her magical incantations ;
and if towards the end of three years she did lose, or began to lose, faith
in them, the general tone of her replies to M. d'Argensou's questions seems
to imply that it was only in the efficacy of the particular incantations
to which her acquaintance happened to be limited, and not in the general
possibility of summoning and gaining ascendancy over evil spirits, that
she had lost confidence.

XLV.]

Review.

421

(2) She believed in the truth of the stories of buried treasures.

(3) She resolutely maintained her conviction that the apparition of the
angel Jassemin, which she had experienced in childhood, was " a real thing."

(4) She admitted that she had often pretended to call up and converse
with the spirit merely to please (eatisfaire) her companions.

(5) She denied that money was her object, and declared that she fre-
quently went through her tricks for the mere fun of laughing in her
sleeve at the credulity of her followers.

Mr. H. G. Wells has made the pleasure of gulling the credulous the
dominant note in the character of the fraudulent medium that he has
portrayed in his Love and Mr. Lewuhain. But for such a motive to be
more than fitfully operative demands the possession by the charlatan of a
larger degree of intelligent cynicism than would seem to have been con-
sistent with the unthinking Bohemianism of Mile, de la Ville. It was
one among several motives, no doubt, as perhaps it may be in the case
of all charlatans, but it was not the dominant one.

Love of money, in spite of her denial, was certainly an incentive, though
not, perhaps, one of the strongest ; for Mile, de la Ville could easily have
turned her wits and her looks to more profitable account than to duping
an impecunious Prior, and it was only rarely that a well-to-do person
joined the band, and then but for a short time. In so far as she had
hoped at first to possess herself of treasure by magic arts, money was her
object ; but, in spite of one or two shady episodes, she must be acquitted
of having primarily aimed at extracting money from her companions.

It is easy enough to conjecture other motives besides those which
Marie- Anne admitted, but I believe that the essential motive lay in her
own credulity. If she had not originally believed that spirits of evil
could be evoked from the nether world and subdued by magical rites,
her career might not indeed have proved less criminal, but it would not
have taken the particular direction which it did.

We are usually content to assume that the practice of fraudulent
medium ship is due to a love of money, or of notoriety, or of deception,
but we might do well to add another motive to the list, namely, the
belief, or at least the expectation, held by a medium at the outset of his
career, that if he perform the necessary ceremonies and follow the recog-
nised procedure, supernormal phenomena will follow in due course.

Some lines from the introductory chapter may serve to conclude this
review of M. de Coynart's book : " Dealing though it does for the most
part with very obscure individuals, this history shows to what depths of
credulity persons of all ranks and not wanting in intelligence can descend.
Though this truth will be borne out by a narrative based throughout on
authentic documents, it evidently does not follow that all marvels can
therefore be explained away. But, at least, this history will demonstrate
what great precautions we luust all of us take to protect ourselves from
the workings of our own imagination or from the suggestions of others."

J. G. Piddinoton.

2 K

422

Dr. Charles Lloyd Tuckey.

[PAKT

Deuxieme Congrte International de V Hypnotism* Experimental et Tkera-
peutique. Comptes Rendu* (320 pp., large 8vo. Vigot Freres, Paris, 1902.
10 frs.).

This volume contains a report of the Congress held in Paris in August,
1900, under the presidency of Professor Raymond and Dr. Jules Voisin
of the Salpgtriere. It is edited by Dr. Berillon and Dr. Farez, and is
well printed and got up with 56 illustrations and diagrams.

About forty physicians and jurists interested in the subject attended
the Congress, representing all parts of the world, and papers were con-
tributed by several members who were unable to appear in person. The
papers deal with hypnotism from the psychological as well as from the
purely medical point of view. Among the most important is that by
Dr. Berillon giving the history of hypnotism. In this he does full
justice to James Braid, whom he considers the founder of the scientific
aud modern school, though it is, he says, to Li6beault of Nancy that we
owe the practical recognition of the value of hypuotic treatment.

It is not easy at this time to say anything new on the subject, but
Dr. Oscar Vogt of Berlin, and Drs. Paul Farez aud Felix Regnault of Paris
contribute papers on the value of hypnotism in psychological investiga-
tions. Dr. Farez gives illustrations showing how the working of the
subconscious self may be rendered manifest in the hypnotic state. For
instance, a girl aged 25 who was obsessed by the thought that she must
throw herself out of the window, explained when hypnotised that the
idea arose from her having seen such an accident portrayed in an
illustrated paper, though she bad no memory of it in her waking state.
Recognition of the cause enabled Dr. Farez to cure the obsession by
counter-suggestion. He tells a somewhat disconcerting story of a dramatic
author who allowed himself to be frequently hypnotised by his wife,
who at last was able to throw him into profound hypnosis by touching
the nape of his neck, and to change his ordinary sleep into hypnotic
trauce. She made use of this power to dictate his conduct to him. For
instance, on one occasion M. X. found himself unable to walk up the
stairs leading to a friend's rooms, and thought that he was becoming
paralysed. In alarm he went to Dr. Farez, who hypnotised him and
discovered that the wife had out of jealousy suggested the physical
inability to visit the friend she objected to. If Mme. X. had gone
a little further and suggested to her husband that no one but herself
could hypnotise him, it would have been difficult to overcome her undue
influence.

Dr. Regnault endeavours to explain by the light of the most recent
discoveries in psychology and neurology how hypnosis assists the action
of suggestion. He argues that in the waking state a sensation sets up a
centripetal nerve current which excites corresponding psychic cells in the
brain cortex, and these he terms "centres of sentiment" These centres
represent sentiments and ideas, and transmit the impulses to the motor

XLV.]

Review,

423

neurons. It is the neuron which vibrates the most which induces the
responsive action.

In profound hypnosis, Dr. Regnault thinks, the suggested sensation
acts so powerfully on the psychic cell or centre of sentiment that only
one idea is aroused and, therefore, free choice in conduct is prevented.
This is only another way of expressing Bernheim's contention that
hypnotism enables the operator to stimulate or suppress a function by
acting on its cerebral centre through the suggested idea.

Several physicians including Tokarsky of Moscow, de Jong of tne
Hague, Lloyd Tuckey of London, Stadelmann of Wurtzburg, contributed
papers on the treatment of drunkenness by hypnotism ; and the general
experience was of an encouraging nature. Berillon attached much impor-
tance to the creation of a " psychic centre of inhibition " which he brings
about by suggesting to the hypnotised patient that he is unable to con-
vey a glass containing alcohol to his mouth. At the same time he is
made to hold a glass in his hand and shown ibow he is paralysed when
he attempts to raise it to his lips. By repetition the suggestion becomes,
as it were, a fixed idea which effectually prevents indulgence.

Other papers deal with hypnotism and medical jurisprudence (Dr. v.
Schrenck-Notzing of Munich has made this latter subject quite his own) ;
the regulation of the practice of hypnotism by the State ; the relation of
hypnosis to ordinary sleep, etc.

Will Power, How to Acquire and Strengthen, by Richard J. Ebbard.
(London, 1902. pp. 275. 8vo. The Modern Medical Publishing Co.)

This is one of many books published lately on the subject of will
power and it is a fair example of its class. The theory of the subliminal
self, so ably worked out by Mr. Myers and other members of the S.P.R.,
is largely responsible for the prominence given to the subject, but the
followers go much further than the pioneers would consider authorised
by facts. According to Ebbard and his school the subconscious self is
not only omniscient but also omnipotent, and has only to be properly
trained and suitably evoked to cure all the ills which afflict the human
body and mind. Herr Ebbard is a profound believer in the Nancy school
of hypnotism, but he considers hypnosis unnecessary. He gives elaborate
tables for self- treatment by suggestion, and he advocates this being
carried out at night while waiting for sleep. At this time, he argues,
it is possible to so influence the mind by repetition of a phrase ms to
make it a dominant idea and the determining influence on function and
conduct.

The book contains much good advice, and many of the directions given
are based on sound common sense. The author mixes up a good many
other things with his psychic treatment, so that a patient studying it
might feel a good deal puzzled, and feel inclined to consult Herr

Chas. Lloyd Tucket, M.D.

Digitized by

424

Dr. Charles Lloyd Tuckey.

[paw

Ebbard — a not unwished -for result, perhaps. Several patent and quack
remedies are vaunted and altogether one is reminded of the saying
attributed to Talleyrand that appropriate incantations and arsenic will
kill sheep.

Have You a Strong Willt By C. G. Lkland. (Second and Enlarged
Edition, pp. 284. 8vo. Philip Welby, London, 1902.)

A book by the veteran author of The Breitmann Ballads commands
respectful attention, and when Mr. Leland assures us that his memory
has improved since his seventieth birthday by following out the rules
he explains in his book, we are bound to believe him, and to acknow-
ledge the value of the lesson he teaches.

The case of another "Grand Old Man," the late Dr. Brown Sequard,
the famous neurologist of Paris, however, occurs to one's mind, and how
he thought he had discovered the elixir of life and could renew his own
youth and energy by its use.

Mr. Leland discourses in his pleasant style on the different systems of
artificial memory, which are all, he says, based on association of ideas;
and then he comes to his own system, which he terms direct memory.
Briefly, this consists of cultivating the memory, and so gradually
strengthening it, by learning extracts and things by heart at bedtime
with careful attention and the strong wish to understand aud remember
them. By degrees, the author says, the memory becomes so strengthened
that one is able to remember without difficulty anything learnt in this
manner, the subconscious self being thus educated. Not only is memory
improved, but character can be formed and vicious tendencies can be
amended. Mr. Leland says he began to practise on himself, willing that
he should be able to work all the next day without fatigue. In this
way he acquired confidence and facility, which, he adds, is marvellous in
a man of his age. It will be very interesting if some of the members
of the S.P.R. will carry out the author's suggestions and let us know the
result. A person who can never remember dates or figures might begin
by impressing a few of these on his mind the last thing before going
to sleep, and gradually increase the task until the normal faculty was
acquired or even surpassed.

Christian Science, Medicine, and Occultism, by Albert Moll, M.D.
(London: Rebman Ltd., 1902. pp. '47. 8vo. Price 6d.)

Dr. Moll is well known as a writer on hypnotism and allied subjects,
and is a prominent physician in Berlin. In this paper he gives an account
of his investigation of Christian Science in Germany and also in the
United States. He writes from the standpoint of an educated physician,

Chas. Lloyd Tucket, M.D.

Chas. Lloyd Tuckky, M.D.

XLV.]

Review.

425

but with an open mind. He admits the cures which Mrs. Eddy and
her followers often effect, but he is convinced that these are only possible
in functional and nervous maladies. Dr. Moll quotes the offer of an
American physician who expresses his readiness to pay $1000 to any one
who can produce a single case of malignant disease cured by Christian
Science. He is an uncompromising opponent of Spiritualism, the pheno-
mena of which he thinks are always produced by fraud and deception.
He quotes several gross cases which have occurred in Berlin, and he
seems to have been very unfortunate in his investigations.

Members of the S.P.R. will think Dr. Moll wanting in a sense of
fairness and proportion in his conclusions, and in his classing together
"animal-magnetism, table-moving, telepathy, spirit-rapping, materialisa-
tion, and fire-walking." He says he has never, during the many years
he has made occultism a particular study, come across a single pheno-
menon which was not "open to explanation by forces known to reputable
8cience.,,

Dr. Moll shows the serious risk run in treating all diseases as the
outcome of morbid imagination, and how in such a disease as appendicitis,
when a successful issue depends upon early and correct diagnosis, time
may be lost and life endangered by treating the symptoms as trivial
and neglecting to call in a doctor. He thinks that spiritualists and
Christian scientists are generally sworn enemies to the regular school of
medicine, are often strict vegetarians or enthusiastic homoeopath ists, and
generally persons of unstable mental equilibrium. Dr. Moll gives a long
list of spiritualistic and occult societies existing in Berlin, and he thinks
that Germany and other countries are suffering from a psychical
epidemic.

Zur Psychologie und Pathologic sogenannter occulter Phanomene. Von Dr.
Med. C. G. Juno. (Leipzig : O. Mutze, 1902, 8vo. pp. 122.)

In this little work Dr. Jung, who is Assistant Medical Officer of the
Psychiatrische Klinik at Zurich, discusses two cases which came under
his own observation. The first, very briefly related, is a case of hallucinatory
attacks followed by amnesia in a patient who suffered apparently from
overwork. The author justly remarks that [some of the leading cases on
which the psychologist commonly relies are little better than anecdotes, and
no more reliable than anecdotes usually are. It is a useful work to replace
these travellers' tales by modern examples which have been submitted
to careful study and analysis.

The second case is of more interest from the point of view of psychical
research. The subject, a female medium of sixteen years of age, developed
a mystical system of natural science in the course of her trances. The
development of her "controls" is carefully traced, but unfortunately no
details are given on one point of great interest. It is stated (p. 24) that

Chas. Lloyd Tuckby, M.D.

426

N. W. Thomas.

[part

she was able to personate remarkably well dead relatives and even persona
who had merely been described to her. Experiments in personation are
obviously complementary to Professor Hyslop's experiments in identifica-
tion, and it is a matter for regret that the author did not see the importance
of such observations. There seems to have been nothing beyond secondarr
personality in the trances. Among other phenomena glenoid** was
occasionally observed ; the language was unmistakably a modified French.

The Mind of Man, by Gustav Spiller. (Swan Sonnenscheiii, London,
1902, 8vo. pp. xiv. 552.)

Mr. Spiller has come to the conclusion that psychology is amazingly
backward and in this book sets forth the results of his efforts to advance
it. We learn in the preface that it is the outcome of the application of
the experimental method ; the author professes to have built up his fabric
by introspection ; he reviews incidentally the literature of normal psycho-
logy. We can hardly be surprised that a writer who regards the science
of psychology as up to the present non-existent deals hardly with psychical
research and spiritualism (he does not distinguish between them), and at
a matter of fact, his view seems to be that the whole thing is a superstition.
He says : " How are we to account for members of learned societies
seriously maintaining the objectivity of these pretences [of the Spiritualists] ?
The less said on the subject the better." And again : " There is no science
of spiritism . . . after the short experimental stage come undiluted
dogma and reckless speculation. Professors Wallace, Crooke*, Lodge and
James illustrate what I am saying. Only the last of these is a psychologist
and he has never written anything bulky on the subject." After Mr.
Spiller's unqualified condemnation of psychologists, as "philosophers, te.
those who have settled doctrines to begin with," it is a little difficult
to see on what grounds he thinks that psychologists are best fitted to
investigate spiritism. It is still less clear why no psychologist can be
an authority until he has written something bulky on the subject. Again
it is difficult to suppose that Mr. Spiller means anything by accusing Sir
Oliver Lodge and Sir William Crookes of reckless speculation after a
short experimental stage. If they have published nothing bulky, they
have not indulged in reckless speculation. Mr. Spiller's view that the
whole thing is a superstition makes his attitude towards Sir W. Crookesfc
experiments rather enigmatic ; he regards them as M interesting." If
the whole thing is fraudulent, one might suppose that experiments
could only be interesting in proportion as the experimenter was deceived.
If there is an objective basis, on the other hand, it is rather hard on
members of learned societies that they may not say so without being
regarded as superstitious. More inexplicable still is Mr. Spiller's state-
ment that " competent persons M should examine the whole subject. Mr.
is quite sure that it is all humbug; this being so, one does

N. W. Thomas.

xlv.] Review. 427

not quite see what his competent person is to do. The remainder of
the work is not quite so revolutionary as Mr. S pi Her imagines. The
line he takes is not always very clear and he would probably have
been more effective if he had confined himself to a narrower field.

N. W. Thomas.

Digitized by

428

Edmund Ghirney Library.

[part

EDMUND GURNEY LIBRARY.

SUPPLEMENTARY CATALOGUE, 1902.
Addition* since the List in Proceedings, Vol. XV.
Alexander (W. M.). Demoniac Possession in the New Testament.

Edinburgh, 1902.

Ave-Lallemant (F. C. B.). Der Magnetismus mit seineu mystischen
Beirrungen. Munich, 1856.

Arndt (W.) Beitrage zu den durch den animalischen Magnetismus zeither
bewirkten Erscheinungen. Breslau, 1816.

Binet (A.). La Suggestibility Paris, 1900.

Carrie (L'Abbe). Hydroscopographie. Saintes, 1863.

Conores de Pbtchologis, IV*, Comptes rendus. Paris, 1901.

Conores de l'Hypnotisme, II", Comptes rendus. Parti, 1902.

" Cosmic Consciousness : a Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind ; "
edited by Dr. Richard Maurice Bucke. Philadelphia, 1901.

Dblbuzb (J. P. F.). Instructions in Animal Magnetism. New York, 1846.

Fajardo (D.). Hypnotismo. Rio de Janeiro, 1889.

Finzi (J.). Die normalen Schwankungen der Seeleuthatigkeit

Wiesbaden, 1900.

Flournot (T.). Nouvelles Observations sur un Cas de Somnambulisme.

Geneva, 1902.

Freud (S.). Uber den Traum. Wiesbaden, 1901.

Hufeland (W.). tJber Sympathie. Weimar, 1822.

James (W.). Varieties of Religious Experience. London, 1902.

Jastrow (Prof. J.). Fact and Fable in Psychology. Boston, UJS.A., 1901.
Kiesewetter (Carl). Geschicbte des neueren Occultism us. Leipzig, 1891.
Juno (C. G.) Zur Psychologie sogenannter occulter Phanomene.

Leipzig, 1902.

Lipps (T.). Suggestion und Hypnose. Munich, 1898.

Das Selbstbewusstsein. Wiesbaden, 1901.

Loewbnfeld (L). Der Hypnotismus. Wiesbaden, 1901.

Somnambulismus und Spiritismus. Wiesbaden, 1900.

Mason (Dr. Osgood). Hypnotism and Suggestion. New Fort, 1901.

MoRSELLi (E). II Magnetismo animate. Turin, 1886.

Munsterberg (Prof. Hugo). Psychology and life. Boston, UJS.A., 1899.
Podmore (F.). Modern Spiritualism. London, 1902.

Salverte (Eusebe). Des Sciences Occultes. 2nd edition. Paris, 1843.
Schrrnck-Notzing (A. v.). Kriminalpsychologi8che und -pathologische
Studien. Leipzig, 1902-

Seroi (G.). L'Origine dei Fenomeni psycbici. Milan, 1888

Sidis (Boris). Psychology of Suggestion. New York, 1898

Strombeck (de). Histoire de la Guerison d*une jeuue Personne. Paris, 1814
T. (M.). Essai physique et mealcinaL Saintes, 1863

Digitized by

Google

XLV.]

Officers and CowncU for 1902.

429

FORMER PRESIDENTS.

PROFESSOR HENRY SlDOWICK,

Professor Balfour Stewart, F.RS.,

Professor Henry Sidgwick,

The Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, M.P., F.RS., -

Professor William Jambs (Harvard, U.S.A.), -

Sir William Crookes, F.RS., - -

Frederic W. H. Myers, -

Sir Oliver Lodge, F.RS., -

1882-1884.
1886-1887.
1888-1892.
1893.

1894-1895.
1896-1899.
1900.
1901.

OFFICERS AND COUNCIL FOR 1902.

PRESIDENT.
Sir Oliver Lodge, F.RS.

VICE-PRESIDENTS.

The Right Hon. A. J. Balfour,

M.P., F.RS.
Professor W. F. Barrett, F.RS.
Sir William Crookes, F.RS.
Professor J. H. Hyslop, Columbia

University, New York, U.S.A.

Professor W. James, Harvard,
U.S.A

Professor S. P. Lang ley, Smithson-
ian Institution, Washington, U.S.A.
Lord Rayleigh, F.RS.
The Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Ripon.

COUNCIL.

W. W. Baggally.

The Rt. Hon. G. W. Balfour, M.P.

A. W. Barrett, M.B.

Professor W. F. Barrett, F.RS.

Ernest N. Bennett.

J. Milne Bramwell, M.B.

Montague Crackanthorpe, K.C.

The Earl of Crawford and Bal-

carrbs, K.T., F.RS.
Hon. Everard Feilding.
Richard Hodgson, LL.D.
Alice Johnson.
Walter Leaf, Litt.D.
J. G. Piddington.

St. George Lane Fox Pitt.
Frank Podmore.
Lord Rayleigh, F.RS.
George F. Rogers, M.D.
F. C. S. Schiller.
Sydney C. Scott.
A. F. Shand.

Mrs. Henry Sidgwick, LittD.
H. Arthur Smith.
Sir A. K. Stephenson, K.C.B., K.C.
Lieut.-Col. G. L. Le M. Taylor.
Professor J. J. Thomson, F.RS.
Charles Llotd Tuckey, M.D.
Mrs. A W. Verrall.

HON. TREASURER.
H. Arthur Smith, 7 Queen's Mansions, Brook Green, London, W.
BON. SECRETARY.
J. G. Piddington, 87 Sloane Street, London, S.W.
EDITOR.

Miss Alice Johnson, Newnham College, Cambridge.
ORGANISING SECRETARY.
N. W. Thomas, 20 Hanover Square, London, W.
HON. SECRETARY FOR RUSSIA.
Michael Petrovo-Solovovo, 6 Quai Francais, St Petersburg.
SECRETARY AND TREASURER OF THE AMERICAN BRANCH.
Dr. Richard Hodgson, 5 Boylston Place, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.

Digitized by Google

430

Members and Associates.

[part

MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATES.

(January, 1903.)

President — Sir Oliver Lodge, F.RS.

Vice-President s.
The Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, M.P., F.R.S., 10 Downing Street, S.W.
Professor W. F. Barrett, F.R.S., Royal College of Science, Dublin.
Sir William Crookes, F.RS., 7 Kensington Park Gardens, London, W.
Professor J. H. Hyslop, Columbia University, New York, U.S.A.
Professor William James, Harvard, U.S.A

Professor S. P. Langley, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, U.S.A.
Lord Rayleigh, F.RS., Terling Place, Witham, Essex.
The Right Rev. the Bishop of Ripon, The Palace, Ripon.

Honorary Members.

Professor W. F. Barrett, F.R.S., Royal College of Science, Dublin.
Sir William Crookes, F.RS., 7 Kensington Park Gardens, London, W,
Alfred Russel Wallace, F.RS., Corfe View, Parkstone, Dorset
G. F. Watts, RA., Little Holland House, London, W.

Corresponding Members.

Professor A. Alexander, Caixa, 906, Rio Janeiro.
Professor H. Beaunis, Villa Josephine, Route d'Antibes, Cannes,
France.

Professor Bernheim, H6pital Civil, Nancy, France.

Professor H. P. Bowditch, M.D., Harvard Medical School, Boston,

U.S.A

Professor Nicholas M. Butler, Columbia University, New York, U.S.A

Dr. Dariex, 6 Rue du Bellay, Paris.

Dr. Max Dessoir, 31 Goltz Strasse, Berlin, W.

Dr. F4r4, 37 Boulevard St. Michel, Paris.

Professor Th. Flournoy, The University, Geneva.

Professor Stanley Hall, Clark University, Worcester, Mass., U.S.A.

Digitized by

XLV.]

Members and Associates.

431

Dr. Eduard von Hartmann, Gross-Lichterfelde, Germany.

Professor Pierre Janet, 22 Rue de Bellechasse, Paris.

Dr. A. A. Ltebeault, Nancy, France.

Professor J. Liegeois, Nancy, France.

Professor C. Lombroso, 43 Corso Oporto, Turin, Italy.

Professor E. C. Pickering, The Observatory, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.

Th. Ribot, OflSce of the Revue Philosophique, Paris.

Professor Charles Richet, 15 Rue de PUniversite\ Paris.

Dr. Freiherr von Schrenck-Notzing, 2 Max Joseph Strasse, Munich.

Dr. H. de Varigny, 18 Rue Lalo, Paris.

Professor N. Wagner, Imperial University, St. Petersburg.

Dr. Otto O. Wetterstrand, Stockholm.

Dr. O. C. Wittig, 22 Kornerstrasse, Leipzig.

Honorary Associates.
Alexander, Mrs. Eezia £., Birmingham, Mich., U.S.A.
Alrutz, Dr. Sydney, Upsala, Sweden.
Bennett, E. T., The Rock, Port Isaac, N. Cornwall.
Brill, Miss Alice B., 1509 Lark in Street, San Francisco, Cal., U.S.A.
Coleman, William Emmette, Chief Quartermaster's OflSce, Phelan

Building, San Francisco, Cal., U.S.A.
Falcomer, Professor M. T., Regio Istituto Tecnico, Alessandria.
Finzi, Dr. George, 11 Monte di Pieta, Milan.
Fryer, Rev, A. T., 2 Newport Road, Cardiff.
Glardon, Rev. Auguste, Tour de Peilz, Vaud, Switzerland.
Goodrich-Freer, Miss, Sesame Club, 29 Dover Street, Piccadilly, W.
Grubb, Edward, M.A., Devonshire Chambers, Bishopsgate Without,

London, E.C.

Haslam, Professor F. W., M.A., Canterbury College, Christchurch,
New Zealand.

Hull, Miss P. C, 134 West 116th Street, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.
Jenkins, E. Yaughan, Energlyn, 38 St Margaret's Road, Oxford.
Keulemans, J. G., 3 Uphall Road, Ilford.

Macdonald, Rev. J. A., 6 Queen's Avenue, Freshfield, Liverpool
fcjangin, Marcel, 102 Rue Erlanger, Paris.

Newbold, Wm. Romaine, Ph.D., Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pa., U.S.A.

Ochorowicz, Dr. J., 23 Rue Yladimir, Warsaw.
# Porter, Miss, 16 Russell Square, London, W.C.

Robertson, Miss N., 31 Cissbury Road, Hove, Brighton.

Imogen, E. Dawson, Rose Villa, Church End, Finchley, London, N.

Digitized by Google

432

Members and Associates.

[part

Shufeldt, Dr. R W., 3221 School Street, N.W. Washington, D.O,
U.S.A

Sutton, Mrs. K. P., Ellsworth, Maine, U.S.A

Wake, C. Staniland, 230 56th Street* Chicago, 111., U.S.A.

Wiltse, Dr. A. S., lancing, Morgan Co., Tenn., U.S. A

Members and Associates.

An asterisk is prefixed to the names of Members.

Abernethy, Mrs., 10 St. Colme Street, Edinburgh, N.R

Adair, Desmond, Bank of England, Plymouth.

Adams, Miss Amy, 27 New Cavendish Street, Cavendish Square,

London, W.
Adams, Mrs., 4 Brookside, Cambridge.

Adamson, Eev. H., P.O. Box 241, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Alban, Miss Mary H., Hotel Bellevue, Via Nazionale, Rome.
Alexander, Prof. S., M.A., The Owens College, Manchester.
Allen, Mrs. M. S., Picton House, Ealing, London, W.
Allin, Rev. Thomas, Chelston Mount, Torquay.
Amery, W. C, 34a, Corporation Street, Birmingham.
Anderson, Jos., jun., The Lodge, Clayton, Manchester.
Anders, Miss F. A. M., B.A, 52 Regent Road, Leicester.
Anesaki, M., Japanese Consulate, Bombay, India.
Appleyard, Walter, Endcliffe Crescent, Sheffield.
Argles, Miss Edith M., Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford.
Argoutinsky-Dolgoroukoff, Prince Wladimir, 11 Millionaia, Sk
Petersburg.

Armstrong, Miss C. M., 31 Hereford Square, London, S.W.
Arnold, Edward G., Relay Station, East Dean, Eastbourne.
Arnott, T. Davidson, Port of Spain, Trinidad, B.W.L
Asher, Miss Kate, High Laggary, Row, Dumbartonshire, N.R
Astley, Miss, 9 Tite Street* Chelsea, London, S.W.

♦Astor, William Waldorf, Cliveden, near Maidenhead.

*Auden, Harold A, Clarendon House, Woodford Green, Essex.

*Baggally, Wortley W., 23 Lower Phillimore PL, Kensington, W.

♦Bagnell, Mrs., c/o Miss Spencer, 25 York Street, Portman Square,
London, W.

♦Baker, Mrs. Duff, 4 Chesterfield Street, Mayfair, London, W.
♦Baker, Mrs. Charles, South Cliff Hotel, Southbourne-on-Sea, Christ-
en, Hants.

Irs., 15 Hanover Terrace, Regent's Park, London, N.W.

Digitized by

XLV.]

Members and Associates.

433

♦Balfour, The Rt Hon. G. W., M.P., Whitehall Court, London, S.W.
♦Balfour, Miss, 10 Downing Street, London, S.W.
♦Barber, Mrs. Hugh, Grosvenor Crescent Club, Hyde Park Corner,
London, S.W.

Barclay, Bev. Charles W., M.A., The Vicarage, Hertford Heath,
Hertford.

♦Barclay, Edwyn, Urie Lodge, Ridgway, Wimbledon.

Barclay, Miss Marion F., Kylemore, Wimbledon.

Barkworth, Mrs., Northbrook, Aldershot.

Barlow, Miss Jane, The Cottage, Raheny, Co. Dublin.
♦Barlow, Rev. J. W., M.A., The Cottage, Raheny, Co. Dublin.
♦Barrett, Ashley W., M.B., 7 Cavendish Place, Cavendish Square,
London, W.

♦Barrington, Sir Eric, 62 Cadogan Place, London, S.W.
Barrow, Miss, Eureka Camp P.O., Jamaica.
Baruch, Edgar, 100 California St., San Francisco, CaL, U.S.A.
Bates, Colonel C. E., c/o London and County Bank, 1 Connaught

Street, London, S.W.
Bates, Miss, c/o London and County Bank, Maidstone.
♦Battersea, The Lady, Aston Clinton, Tring.
Baudains, Miss G. M., Parade House, Jersey.
Bayfield, Rev. Matthew A., M.A., c/o Mrs. Young, Clifton Villas,

Alverstoke, Hants.
Bean, Rev. Edwin, M.A., The School House, Brentwood.
Beck, Rev. John Henry, M.A., Chaplain H.M. Government of

India, Camp Ahmedabad, India.
Behrens, Harold L., West View, Victoria Park, Manchester.
♦Behrens, Richard Gompertz, Burlington Chambers, 180 Piccadilly,

London, W.

♦Behrens, Noel Edward, Burlington Chambers, 180 Piccadilly,
London, W.

Bell, Charles W., J.P., D.L., 13 Grosvenor Crescent,
Corner, London, S.W.

Bellasis, Major G. M., Young's Point, Ontario, Canada.
♦Bennett, Arthur G., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., St. Ann's Hill

Bennett, Ernest N., M.A., Hertford College, Oxford.
♦Benson, Mrs., Tremans, Horated Keynes, Sussex.

Benson, Miss Annette M., M.D., c/o E. E. B<-m
Clements Inn, London, W.C.
♦Berens, Rev. Randolph, M.A., 14 Princes Gardens I

Bergen, Axel von, Abbeville, Darlington.

Digitized by Google

434

Members and Associates.

[PABT

♦Berry, Mrs. F. M. Dickinson, M.D., 60 Welbeck Street, Cavendish

Square, London, W.
♦Berthier, Miss S. de L., Gledholt, Portlands Path, Ryde, I.W.

Bevan, Miss N. H., 9 Hans Mansions, London, S.W.

Bevan, Hon. Mrs. K. Yorke, 9 Rutland Gate, London, W.

Bevan, Mrs. Robert, 131 Gloucester Road, London, S.W.
*Beveridge, Erskine, St. Leonards Hill, Dunfermline, N.B.

Bicknell, Rev. Clarence, M.A., Villa Rose, Bordighera, Italy.
♦Bidder, Mrs., 10 Queen's Gate Gardens, London, S.W.

Bidder, George P., Cavendish Corner, Hills Road, Cambridge.

Biddulph, The Lady Elizabeth P., 19 Ennismore Gardens, London,

*Bigg, Miss Louisa, 6 Christ Church Gardens, Reading.
Bingley, Mrs., 23 Eaton Place, London, S.W.
*Binney, Rev. Maximilian F. B., M.A., The Vicarage, Richmond,
Surrey.

Birrell, Mrs., 48 Gwydyr Mansions, Hove, Brighton.
Blackburn, E. M., 79 The Drive, Hove, Brighton.
Blathwayt, W., 4 Endsleigh Street, Tavistock Square, London, W.C.
Boehner, Carl, 18 Obstgartenstr., Zurich, Switzerland.
Bois, Henry G., c/o Messrs. J. M. Robertson & Co., Colombo,
Ceylon.

Bonazza, Carlo, Hotel Cavour, 5 Via Proconsolo, Florence.
♦Bond, Frederick Bligh, 16 Brook Street, Bath.
Bott, Mrs., Somersal, Derby.

Bowden, Ernest M., 35 Bedford Place, London, W.C.
Bowden-Smith, Mrs., at Carey's, Brockenhurst.
*Bower, Miss, 32 Halsey Street, Lennox Gardens, London, S.W.
Bower, James Garton, jun., Earlham House, Norwich.
Bowness, William Wilson, 26 Campden Grove, Kensington,
London, W.

Box, Alfred Marshall, c/o Cooper, Box & Co., Ltd., 69 Alderman-
bury, London, E.C.

Bozzano, E., Piazza S. Anna 74, Genoa.
♦Bradbury, B., 16 Brown Hill Terrace, Hudson Road, Leeds.

Bramston, Miss M., St. Grimbald's, Winchester.

Bramston, Miss A. R, Witham's Close, Winchester.
♦Bramwell, J. Milne, M.B., 15 Stratford Place, Oxford Street,
London, W.

Brandreth, Henry S., Fairholme, Weybridge.

Brayshaw, John L., Settle, Yorkshire.

S.W.

Members and Associates.

435

Brewster, Bertram, 5 Primrose Mansions, Battersea Park, Lon-
don, S.W.

Brewster, Mrs. F., 21 Park Valley, Nottingham.

Brodrick, Mrs. Alan, 31 Green Heys Road, Liverpool (Oct. -Apr.),
and Western Holme, Hoylake (Apr. -Oct.).

Brooke, Col. C. K., Army and Navy Club, Pall Mall, London, S.W,
*Brookes-Smith, Mrs. E., Olric House, St. Marychurch, Torquay.
. Brown, Miss May, 62 Carlisle Mansions, Westminster, S.W.

Browne, Edward G., M.A., M.B., Pembroke College, Cambridge.

Browne, Mrs. W. P., Bidston, 97 Gipsy Hill, Upper Norwood, S.E.

Browning, Oscar, M.A., King's College, Cambridge.
*Bryce, J. P., J.P., Bystock, near Exmouth, Devon.

Bryce, Miss Kathleen, 15 Campden Hill Square, London, W.
♦Bubb, Henry, J.P., Alltenwood, near Cheltenham.
*Bubna, Count Francis, Upton Towers, Slough, Bucks.
*Bulley, Mrs. Arthur, Ness, Neston, Cheshire.

Bulman, H. F., Barcus Close, Burnopfield, R.S.O., Co. Durham.

Burghard, Mrs., 86 Harley Street, London, W.

Bury, Henry, Mayfield House, Farnham, Surrey.

Bury, Mrs. Henry, Mayfield House, Farnham, Surrey.
♦Bushell, Rev. W. D, M.A., Harrow-on-the-Hill.
*Butt> Lady,

Buttemer, Robert Wm., St. Mary's, Godalming.

Buttery, J. W., 86 Holbein House, Sloane Square, London, S.W.

Button, A. E., 9 High Street, Doncaster.
♦Campbell, Mrs. Napier, 81 Ashley Gardens, London, S.W.
*Caillard, Sir Vincent, Wingfield House, near Trowbridge, Wilts.

Callaway, Charles, D.Sc., M.A., 16 Montpelier Villas, Cheltenham.

Campbell, Mrs. Burnley, Ormidale, Colintraive, Argyllshire, N.B.

Campbell, Colin E., B.A.. 34. Lower Belgrave Street, London, S.W.

Campbell, Lieut. N. D. H., 7th Dragoon Guards, Colchester.

Campbell-Lang, Miss, c/o Prof. Bruntou, LL.B., 48 West Regent
Street, Glasgow.
♦Candler, H. A. W., 37 Commercial Road, London, E.

Capper, Thomas, Kingston, Jamaica, W.I.

Carmichael, Rev. Canon, D.D., LL.D., 10 Sallymount Ave, Tesson
Park, Dublin.

Carnahan, Edward Howard, Meaford, Ontario, Canada.
♦Carnarvon, The Earl of, 13 Berkeley Square, London, W.
Carnsew, Miss Rosamund, New Century Club, 13 Old Bond
Street, London, W.

Digitized by

436

Members and Associates.

[pact

Casey, The Hod. J. J., C.M.G., Ibrickawe, Acland Street, Kild&re,

Melbourne, Australia.
Cathels, Rev. David, M.A., The Manse, Hawick, N.B.
*Cave, Charles, J.P., Binsted, Cambridge.
Cecil, Lady Francis, Stocken Hall, Stretton, Oakham.
. Charlton, Miss Frances M., 36a Victoria Road, Kensington Palace,
London, W.

Chattock, Prof. Arthur P., 24 Royal York Crescent, Clifton, Bristol
Cheyne, C. A., Richmond, Natal, South Africa.
Gulden, Miss F. I., 16 Cheyne Gardens, Chelsea, London, S.W.
Clark, W. W., Denehurst, Dorking.

♦Clarke, Mrs. M. J., West Grange, Cambo, RS.O., Northumberland.
♦Clarke, Francis, 17 Hornsey Rise Gardens, London, N.

Clarke, Miss Isabel, 45 Tisbury Road, Hove, Sussex.

Clarke, J. F. Howard, M.D., M.RC.S., 99 Shaftesbury Avenue,
London, W.

*Clavering, Miss A. M. V., Callaly, Sunningdale, Berks.

Clayton, Charles £., 152 North Street, Brighton.

Clemen 8, S. L., Hertford, Conn., U.S.A.

Clissold, Edward M., Ravensworth, Cheltenham.
*Clive, The Hon. Henrietta Windsor, Oakley Park, Bromfield, Salop.
♦Close, Rev. Maxwell H., MA., University Club, Dublin.
♦Coffin, Walter H., F.L.S., 94 Cornwall Gardens, London, S.W.

Coghill, Colonel Kendal, C.B., Castle Townshend, Nr. Skibbereen,
Co. Cork.

Coleridge, Miss Christabel R., Cheyne, Torquay.

Collingwood, Miss A. M., 6 Powis Square, Bayswater, London, W.

Collins, Sir Robert H., K.C.B., Broom Hill, Claremont, Esher.
♦Collison, Mrs. Henry C, 13 Albemarle Street, London, W.
.Colquhoun, Daniel, M.D. (Lond.), M.RC.P. (Lond.), High Street,
Dunedin, New Zealand.

Colville, Major-General Sir Henry £., C.B., Lightwater, Bagshot

Compton, Lady Alwyne, 7 Balfour Place, London, W.

Constable, F. C, Wick Court, near Bristol.

Conway, Lady, Red House, Hornton Street, Kensington, W.

Cooper, £. G., Courts Office, Savanna-la-mar, Jamaica.
♦Cooper, W. E., Hume Towers, Bournemouth.

Copley, Alfred B., York Villa, Belvoir Drive, Old Aylestone, Leicester.

Corrance, Henry C, B.A., 30 Wilbury Gardens, Hove, Brighton.

Cort van der Linden, Miss G. B., Burger Ziekenhuis, Amsterdam,
Holland.

Digitized by

Members and Associates.

437

Cort van der Linden, Dr. P. W. A., Ministre de Justice, Suriname
Street, The Hague.
♦Coudenhove, Count Henry, LL.D., c/o Messrs. Gerald & Co., 8

Stefansplatz, Vienna.
♦Cowan, W. H., 11 Marlborough Road, Bournemouth.

Cowasjee, Bomanjee, 24 Merchant Street, Rangoon, Burmah.
*Cowper-Coles, S. 0., 46 Morpeth Mansions, Morpeth Terrace,
London, S.W.

Coze, Henry R. H., Indian Civil Service, United Service Club,
Calcutta.

♦Crackanthorpe, Montague, K.C., 65 Rutland Gate, London, S.W.
♦Crawford & Balcarres, The Earl of, K.T., F.RS., 2 Cavendish

Square, London, W.
♦Crawford, F. Marion, Villa Crawford, Sant'Agnello di Sorrento,

Italy.

Crawford, W. C, 1 Lockharton Gardens, Colington Road, Edinburgh.
♦Crawshay, R.

Crickmay, Miss Ellen F. St. A., 6 St. James Park, Croydon, S.W.
*Crookes, Lady, 7 Kensington Park Gardens, London, W.
Currie, Mrs., 6 Goldstone Villas, Hove, Brighton.
Curtois, Miss Margaret A., 15 Barton Street, Westminster, S.W.
Dakyns, Henry Graham, M.A., Higher Coombe, Haslemere, Surrey.
Dallas, Miss H. S. A., 116 King Henry's Road, South Hampstead,
London, N.W.

Dartnell, George E., Abbotefield, Stratford Road, Salisbury.
Darton, Hugh, Beninghoe, Hertford.

Darwin, Mrs. Francis, Wychfield, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge.
♦Davidson, J. M., 76 Portland Place, London, W.

Davies, Benjamin, c/o Sir Oliver Lodge, The University, Birmingham.

Davies, Charles S., The Pollards, Victoria Avenue, Farnworth,
Widnes, Lancashire.

Davis, A. E., F.R.C.S. (Edin.), 20 Great George Square, Liverpool.

Davis, Joseph T., Holly Bush, Snaresbrook, Essex.

Davis, Thomas Henry, Gatefield, Clarendon Road, Lewisham, Lon-
don, S.E.

♦Davison, Miss Annie, 41 Roland Gardens, London, S.W.

Davy, Mrs. E. M., 43 Clanricarde Gardens, London, W.

Dawson, Lieut.-Col. Henry P., Hartlington, Burnsall, Skipton.

Densham, William, 40 Grosvenor Road, Gunnersbury, London, W.
♦Dewar, Rev. Peter, M.A., The Manse, North Bute, Rothesay, N.B.

Dickinson, Miss, 9 Chesterfield Street, Mayfair, London, W.

Digitized by Google

438

Mcrribers and Associates.

Dicksee, Frank, A.R.A., Greville House, 3 Greville Place, St, Jrtmt

Wood, London, N.W.
Dill, J. F. Gordon. M.A., M.B., 6 Brunswick Place, Brighton.
♦Dixon, Edward T., Racketts, Hythe, Hants.
Dixon, Hugh N., M.A., F.L.S., East Park Parade, Northampton.
Dixon, Professor W. Afacneile, M.A., LL.B., LittD., 43 Norman

Road, Northfield, Birmingham.
Dobbie, A. W., Gawler Place, Adelaide, South Australia.
♦Dodge, Miss Mary M. EL, 56 Eaton Square, London, S.W.
Donne, Mrs., c/o Messrs. Holt & Co., 3 Whitehall Place, London,

S.W.

Donne, Miss A. GL M., Merrifield, Exmouth, Devon.
Dougall, Miss Lily, c/o Miss Earp, 74 Beaufort Boad, Edgbaston,
Birmingham.

Douglas, Bev. Dr. G. W., 239 Whitney Ave., Newhaven, Conn.,
U.S.A.

DovetoD, F. B., Karsfield, Torquay.

Dowson, Mrs., L.K.Q.C.P., L.R.C.S.I., Merry Hall, Ashstead,
Surrey.

♦Doyle, Sir A. Conan, M.D., Haslemere, Surrey.
Drewry, Mrs. George, Melrose, Buxton.

Dulley, Bev. B., M.A., St. Peter's Clergy House, London Docks, K
*Duncan, Harold M., 171 Queen's Gate, Alexandra Court, London,
S.W.

♦Duncan, Mrs., Earlston, Epsom Road, Guildford.

♦Dunham, Miss Helen, 37 East 36th Street, New York, U.S. A.

Dyce, Captain Cecil (Retired), Bengal Staff Corps., 69 Linden
Gardens, Bayswater, London, W.

Eagle, Frederick, Devonia, St. Andrew's Road, Henley-on-Thames.

Eardley, Lady, 4 Lancaster Street, Hyde Park, London, W.

Edelsten, John A., Norton Lodge, Halton, Cheshire.

Egerton, Miss Mary L., The Cliff, Torrington, York.
* Elder, Frederick, 21 Cleveland Gardens, Hyde Park, London, W.

Elliot, Gilbert W.

Elliot, Gilbert, 10 Hanover Square, London, W.
♦Elliot, Miss, c/o Messrs. Murray, Hutchins & Sterling, 11 Birchin-

lane, London, E.C.
Elliot, Rev. W. A., 54 Kirkgate, Shipley, Yorkshire.
Ellis, Mrs. Edward, Shadingfield Hall, Wangford, R.S.O., Suffolk.
Emson, Charles W., Torrington, Ditton Hill, Surrey,
^ngall, John S., 76 Goldsmith Avenue, Acton, London, W.

Digitized by

XLV.]

Members and Associates.

439

♦Eno, J. C., Wood Hall, Dulwich, London, S.E.

Esterhazy, Count Michael, Cseklesz, Pressburg County, Hungary.

Evison, Mrs., Upward House, near Huntingdon.

Evreinoff, A., The Russian Embassy, Constantinople.

Fairbanks, Mrs. Kama, Fasanenatr. 91, Berlin, W., Germany.
♦Farrer, The Lady, 3 Whitehall Court, London, S.W.
♦Fawssett, Thomas, 97 Philbeach Gardens, Earl's-Court, London, S.W.

Feilding, Hon. and Rev. Basil, Ph.D., The Presbytery, Snow Hill,
Wolverhampton.
♦Feilding, Hon. Everard, 12 Walcot Gardens, London, S.E.

Feilding, The Lady Louisa, Broome Park, Betch worth, Surrey.

Field, Allan B., Postal Box P.O. 37, Schenectady, N.Y., U.S.A.

Finch, H. Wynne, The Manor House, Stokesby, R.S.O., Yorks.

Fisher, Rev. J. Hartman, Nassau, N.P., Bahamas.

Fitzgerald, Desmond G., M.S.T.E., Stanhope Villa, Ashen Road,
Clare, Suffolk.

♦Florence, Ernest B., 5 Pump Court* The Temple, London, E.C.

Ford, Miss Emily S.f 44 Glebe Place, Chelsea, London, S.W.

Forrester, Mrs., Tullibody House, Cambus, by Stirling, N.B.
♦Foster, Rev. J. Edgar, MA., Lindsey Vicarage, Ipswich.

Fotheringham, W. B., 19 St. John's Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex.

Fraser, CoL A. T., R.E., Junior Athenaeum Club, Piccadilly,
London, W.

Freeman, Miss Adelaide C, Belgrave Mansions, Grosvenor Gardens,
London, S.W.

Freeman, Rev. H. B., M.A., The Vicarage, Burton-on-Trent
♦Fry, Lewis George, Limpsfield, Surrey.

Fuller, A. G., Christ Church, Oxford.

Garcke, Emile, M.I.E.E., Ditton House, near Maidenhead.

Garth, Dr., 4 Harington Street, Calcutta, India.

George, William H., 57 Neville Street, Cardiff.

Ghosh, Rai Kali Prasanna, Dacca, Bengal, India.

Gilmour, R. W., St Luke's Hospital, Old Street, London, EC.

Gittermann, Rudolph C, Odessa, Russia.

Goldstein, Dr. Julius, 2 Lichtenhainerstr, Jena, Germany.

Gooch, G. P., 8 Porchester Gate, London, W.

Goodhart, Rev. Charles A., M.A., Lambourne Rectory, Romford.

Gordon, George H., 1 Clare Road, Bristol.
^Gordon-March, G., Maclea House, Emsworth, Hants.

Gover, John' M, LL.D., 5 New Sq., Lincoln's Inn, I

Govett, The Ven. Archdeacon, M.A., Gibraltar.

440

Members and Associates.

[part

Gow, Wm., 184 Earl's-court Road, London, S.W.
Graham, J. W., Dalton Hall, Victoria Park, Manchester.
Green, Alan R, M.A., M.B., B.C., 31 Cheyne Court, Chelsea,
London, S.W.

Green, Mrs., 31 Cheyne Court, Chelsea, London, S.W.
Green, Miss Mirian, Wagner House, Belsize Grove, Hampstead,
London, N.W.

Greig, Rev. David, M.A., Cottenham Rectory, Cambridge.
Grenfell, Mrs. Alice, 62 Holywell, Oxford.

♦Grignon, Rev. W. S., M.A., 30 Blenheim Gardens, Willesden

Green, London, N.W.
Grignon, Miss A E., 30 Blenheim Gardens, Willesden Green,
London, N.W.

Grosvenor, Hon. Mrs. Richard, St Cross Lodge, Winchester.
♦Grubbe, Hubert H., Southwold, Suffolk.

Guinness, Miss, Tibradden, Ratbfarnham, Dublin.
♦Gwyn, W. J., 8 Netherhall Gdns., South Hampstead, London, N.W.

Hackett, James T., B.A., 71 King William St., Adelaide, Australia.

Haig, Mrs. C. K, Orchardwood, Ascot Heath, Berks.

Hales, Frank N., Trinity College, Cambridge.
*Hales, Henry, Elm wood, Kenley, Surrey.

Halkett, Miss Katherine E., 24 Holland Street, Campden Hill,
London, W.

Hall, Wilfred, Dilston Hall, Corbridge-on-Tyne.

Hall, Mrs. W. C, 3 St. Alban's Road, Kensington, London, W.
♦Hambro, Mrs. Eric, 70 Prince's Gate, London, S.W.
♦Hamilton, Bernard, M.A., Hindhead Brae, Haslemere, Surrey.

Hamilton, Col. G. Rowan, Killyleagh Castle, Co. Down, Ireland.

Hamilton, J. J., 70 Cecile Park, Crouch End, London, N.
♦Hamilton, William H., Glenburnie, Werter Road, Putney, S.W.
♦Hannah, Robert, 82 Addison Road, Kensington, London, W.

Hannay, Hugh B., Waterloo Villas, Wellington Road, Bromsgrove.

Hansford, Charles, 3 Alexandra Terrace, Dorchester.
♦Harding, G. Palmer, Trouville, France.

Hargreaves,*Mis8, Oakhurst, Waterloo, Birkdale, Lancashire.

Harraden, Miss Beatrice, 5 Cannon PI., Hampstead, London, N.W.

Harris, Alan Campbell, c/o. J. S. Morgan & Co., 22 Old Broad
Street,; London, E.C.

Harris, Captain C. S., 90 Woodstock Road, Oxford.

Harris, Henry B., 37 Kensington Square, London, W,
•Harris, Hon. J. W., E.I.U.S. Club, 16 St James's Sq., London, S.W.

Digitized by Google

XLV.]

Members and Associates.

441

Hastie, Miss, c/o Messrs. Street, 30 Cornhill, London, KC.

Hayes, Frederick W., 12 Westcroft Sq., Ravenscourt Pk., London, W.
♦Heard, George Henry, 2 Furzehatt Villas, Plymstock, Devon.

Hebert, P. Z., M.D., L.R.C.P., 16a Old Cavendish St., Cavendish
Square, London, W.

Henderson, Miss Lilian, 2 Camden Grove, Kensington, London, W.

Henry, Miss Eva, 1 Argyll Villas, Cheltenham.

Herbert, Hon. Auberon, M.A., Burley, Ringwood, Hants.

Herschel, Colonel John, Royal Engineers, Slough.

Hewitt, Mrs., Wollaston House, Hunstanton, Norfolk.
♦Hichens, Rev. Thomas S., Guilsborough Vicarage, Northampton.

Hielle, Robert, xix/i Karl Ludwig Street, 62, Vienna.
. Hildyard, F. W., Postal Dept., Chancery Lane Safe Deposit Co.,
Chancery Lane, W.C.

Hill-Tout, Charles, Bucklands, Abbotsford, British Columbia.

Hoare, Mrs. Henry, 1 Seymour Street, Portland Square, London, W.

Hoare, F. H., 1 Seymour Street, Portman Square, London, W.

Hocken, Thomas M., M.R.C.S. (Eng.), F.L.S., Moray Place,
Dunedin, New Zealand.

Hodding, Miss, The Close, Salisbury.

Hogg, Sir Frederick Russell, Oriental Club, Hanover Square,
London, W.

*Hogg, Henry R., M.A., 6 Clanricarde Gardens, London, W.
Holland, Miss, Niddry Lodge, Campden Hill, London, W.
Holland, Otho, Ferndene, Parkstone, Dorset.
Hollander, Bernard, L.R.C.P., 62 Queen Anne Street, Cavendish

Square, London, W.
Hollins, Mrs. A. E., Painswick, Stroud, Gloucestershire.
♦Hollond, John R., M.A., Wonham, Bampton, Devon*
Holmes, Edmond G. A., 4 Rawlinson Road, Oxford.
Holmes, Rev. Francis William,# B. A., 11 Darnley Road, London, N.E.
Homan, C. H., 24 Oscarsgade, Christiana, Norway.
♦Home, Mrs. Robert, Beaufort House, Montpelier, Cheltenham,
Hood, Mrs. 115 St. George's Road, London, S.W.
Hooker, Joseph Stenson, M.D., 44 Gloucester Place, Portman

Square, London, W.
Hopkinson, Prof. Alfred, M.A., B.C.L., The Lodge, 32 Heme

Hill, London, S.E.
Horridge, Miss J. G., c/o Miss Pagan, Marston Lodge, Harrow.
Hosking, William H., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., Craven Hotel, Craven

Street, Strand, London, W.C.

Digitized by

442

Members and Associates.

*Hoskins, Edmond J., MJX, Surgeon-Major, Hammam Chambers,
76 Jermyn Street., London, S.W.
Howard, Hon. Hugh M., Trinity College, Oxford.
Howe, KR.J. Gambier, 3 Buckingham Gate Gardens, London, S.W.
Huddleston, Mrs., Llwynderw, Welshpool, Montgomeryshire.
Hudson, Morris, The Hermitage, Guildford.

Hughes, Major H. M., F.R.G.S., Swiss Cottage, Birchington-on-Sea.
♦Hume, Mrs. H. S., 5 The Cloisters, Gordon Square, London, W.C.
Hume-Rothery, J. H., B.Sc (Lond.), The Pines, Worcester Park,
Surrey,

Hunt, G. Angus, M.R.C.S., (Eng.), Stoneleigh House, Clissold

Park, London, N.
Huntingford, Miss, North End House, Winchester.
♦Hutchinson, F. W. H., M.A., Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge.
Hyamson, Albert M., Secretary's Office, General Post Office,

London, E.C.
Infield, H. J., 130 North Street, Brighton.
Ingham, Charles R, Moira House, Eastbourne.
Ingram, Hon. Mrs. Meynell, Temple Newsam, Leeds.
Jackson, Wm. H., M.A., F.L.S., Pen Wartha, Weston-Super-Mare.
Jaye, William R., Springwood Lodge, Oakfield Road, Clapton,

London, N.E.

Jeakes, Rev. James, M.A., 4 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park,
London, N.W.

Jevons, F. B., LittD., Hatfield Hall, Durham.

Johnson, Miss Alice, Newnham College, Cambridge.

Johnston, Miss M. F., The Writers' Club, Hastings House, Norfolk
Street, Strand, W.C.

Jones, Miss Constance, Girton College, Cambridge.

Jones, Miss Lilian T., 7 Hampstead Hill Mansions, Downshire Hill,
London, N.W.

Jones, Lady, Cranmer Hall, Fakenham.
♦Jones, Sir Lawrence J., Cranmer Hall, Fakenham.

Jordan-Smith, Benjamin, A.R.C.S., Broxtowe Drive, Mansfield.

Keep, A. P. Perceval, M.A., 26 Vanbrugh Park, Blackheath, Lon-
don, S.E

♦Kelso, Commander, R.N., Horkesley Park, Colchester.

Ker, Thomas R., Dougalston, Milngavie, N.B.
*Kerr, George, M.A., M.B., 6 St. Colme Street, Edinburgh.

Kingsfqrd, Arthur B., M.R.C.S., 9 Burwood Place, London, W.

Kingston, H. D. R, M.D., Macra, Eltham, Kent

Digitized by

Members and Associates.

443

Knight, Charles N., M.A., 36 Kensington Park Road, London, W.

Knox, Nathaniel, Adelaide Club, Adelaide, South Australia.

Kothen, Baron Axel Von, 27 Mikealsgaten, Helsingfors, Finland.
- Lach-Szyrma, Eev. W. S., M.A., F.R.H.S., Barkingside Rectory, Ilford.
♦Lafone, A. W., Springfield, Oatlands Park, Walton-on-Thames.

Laing, R. M., M.A., B.Sc, Boys' High School, Christchurch, New
Zealand.

♦Lamarre, L. B. de, Hotel Cecil, London, W.C., and Beaulieu,
Trinidad, B.W.I.

. Lambert, Miss A. R., Well House, Banstead, near Epsom, Surrey.

Lambert, Miss Beatrice, 17 Marine Parade, Brighton.
♦Lambert, Edward W.t F.R.G.S., 13 Gt. James Street, London, W.C.
♦Lamplugh, Rev. David, M.A., Rokeby Rectory, Barnard Castle.

Lazzaro, Cleon Page H., Salonica, Turkey in Europe.
. Leaf, Arthur H., Woodcroft, Oxted, Surrey.

Leaf, Mrs., The Green, Marlborough.
♦Leaf, Walter, Litt.D., 6 Sussex Place, Regent's Park, London, N.W.

Leaf, Mrs. Walter, 6 Sussex Place, Regent's Park, London, N.W.

Lee, Rev. A. H. E., 3 Cambrian Terrace, Holbeck Moor, Leeds.

Leedham, Isaac S., 1 The Cloisters, Temple, London, E.C.

Legge, The Lady Frances, Woodsome, Huddersfield.

Leigh, W. Austen, M.A., Hartfield, Roehampton, London, S.W.

Leighton, D. E. W., Madras Club, Madras.
♦Le Mesurier, C. J. R., 19 Perrymead Street, Fulham, London, S.W.

Le Mesurier, Mrs., 19 Perrymead Street/ Fulham, London, S.W.
♦Lendon-Bennett, M., Granite House, Putney Bridge Road, Putney,
S.W.

Leon, Mrs. Philip, 13 Cleveland Square, Hyde Park, London, W.
Leopold, Dr. H. M., 13 Bij de Put, Leeu warden, Holland.
Levy, Mrs., 16 Campden House Road, Campden Hill, London, W.
Lewis, Miss, 33 Hans Place, London, S.W.
♦Leycester, Mrs., 6 Cheyne Walk, Chelaea, London, S.W,
Librarian, Public Library, Adelaide, c/o Mq^fe Regan Paul,

Paternoster House, Charing Cross Road,
Librarian (Hon.) of the Constitutional

Avenue. London, W.C.
.Librarian, Grosvenor Library, c/o Mr. Bt F

Square, London, W.C.
.Librarian, New York Library, c/o

Square, London, W.C.
Librarian, Guildhall Library, London,

444

Members and Associates.

[PART

Librarian, Leeds Library, Commercial Street, Leeds,
librarian, Public Library, Melbourne, Australia,
librarian, Theosophical Society, 28 Albemarle Street, London, W.
Librarian, University of Paris, per H. Welther, 4 Rue Bernard,
Palissy, Paris.

Lindsay, R., L.R.C.S., M.R, The Oaks, Bottey, Hants.

Lloyd, Major Francis, 22 Cadogan Square, London, S.W.

Lloyd, Thomas Edward, J.P., Coedmore, Cardigan.
♦Lockhart, Lady, 187 Queen's Gate, London, S.W.
*Lodge, Sir Oliver, LL.D., F.R.S., Mariemont, Edgbaston, Birmingham.

Lodge, Robert, Laurie Lodge, Meads, Eastbourne.

Loewenstein, E., 43a Maria-Louisen Street, Hamburg, Germany.

Lomaz, Arthur, Richmond, Natal.

Lucas, Henry, "Hilver," St. Agnes Road, Birmingham.

Lyall, Sir Alfred Comyns, F.R.S., 18 Queen's Gate, London, S.W.

Lyell, D., P.O. Box 5228, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Lyon, Jeremiah, J.P., Biddings Court, Caterham Valley, Surrey.

Lyttelton, Hon. Mrs., 16 Great Cottage Street, Westminster,
London, S.W.

Macaura, Dr. Gerald J., Hartford, Conn., U.S.A.

Macdonald, Miss Isabella M., M.B., 47 Seymour Street, Portman
Square, London, W.

Macintyre, John, M.B., F.R.S.E., 176 Bath Street, Glasgow.

Madocks, Major H. J., 32 Eaton Place, London, &W.

Maidlow, William Henry, M.D., F.R.C.S., Ilminster, Surrey.

Mallet, Louis, 215 King's Road, Chelsea, London, S.W.
♦Manders, H., F.R.C.S., 33 Gloucester Ter., Hyde Park, London, W.

Mann, Rev. Frederick, Temple Ewell Vicarage, Dover.

Mantell, Miss Bertha, 6 Shalston Villas, Ewell Rd., Surbiton Hill.

Marchant, Rev. James, Worcester House, West Hill Road, Bourne-
mouth.

Markle, George B., Hazleton, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Marsh, Edward H., B.A., 3 Gray's Inn Place, London, W.C.
Marshall, WiUiam Cecil, M.A., 28 Bedford Square, London, W.C.
*Marten, Miss A. R., 78 Vanbrugh Park, Blackheath, London, S.E.
Marten, R. H., Allensmore, Swansea.

Martin, Miss A. E, 15 Thurloe Sq., South Kensington, London, S.W.
Martin, Mrs. J. Biddulph, 17 Hyde Park Gate, London, S.W.
Martineau, Alfred Edward, c/o J. J. Warburton, Esq., Patiala,

Punjaba, India.
Maryon, Miss, 37 Via Cernaia, Int 3, Rome, Italy.

Digitized by

XLV.]

Members and Associates.

445

Mason, Miss M. H., Local Govt. Board, Whitehall, London, S.W.
**Massey, Charles C., 124 Victoria Street, London, S.W.
♦Mathews, Mrs., 15 Stanley Gardens, London, W.

Matthews, F. H., Blairlodge School, Polmont Station, Stirling-
shire, N.B.

Maturin, Mrs. F., 40 Warwick Street, High Street, Kensington, W.
♦Maxwell, Sir John Stirling-, Bart, 48 Belgrave Sq., London, S.W.
Maxwell, Joseph, 37 Rue Thiac, Bordeaux, France.
Mayor, R. G., 13 Charing Cross Mansions, Charing Cross Road,
London, W.C.

Mazuchelli, Mrs., Allt-y-gog, Nantgaredig, Carmarthenshire.

M'Clure, Henry, M.D., 36 Weymouth Street, London, W.

M<Connel, H. W., M.A., M.B., MR.C.S., Matlaske Hall, Norwich.

M'Dougall, William, M.A., MSc., MB., Weald Mount, Haslemere.
*M'Lachlan, David, Grosvenor House, Ridgway, Wimbledon.

McLaren, Lady, 43 Belgrave Square, London, S.W.

M'Lean, Mrs., Hyde Park Court, Albert Gate, London, S.W.

Meatb, The Most Rev. the Bishop of, Navan, Co. Meath.

Medeiro8 e Albuquerque, Jose* de, Rua S. Christovam, 36, Rio
Janeiro, Brazil

Meebold, Alfred, Heidenheim, Wurtemberg, Germany.

Mellone, Rev. Sydney Herbert, M.A.(Lond), D.Sc.(Edin.), Holly-
wood, Co. Down.

Metcalfe, Rev. F. W., H.M.S. "Diana," Mediterranean Squadron.

Metzger, Daniel, 12 bis, Square de Champel, Geneva.
*Micklethwait, Richard K., Ardsey House, Barnsley.

Milburn, Rev. R. G., M.A., Bishop's College, Calcutta.
*Miles, Miss, Burtonhill, Malmesbury.

Miller, Rev. J. Priest, Surlingham Vicarage, Norwich.

Milton, John Penn, M.R.C.S.(Eng.), L.RC.P.(Lond.), 13 North
Parade, Penzance.

Mitchell, Major, Ballynure, Grange Con, Co. Wicklow.

Mitchell, Mrs. C. W., 195 Queen's Gate, London, S.W.
♦Money-Coutte, Francis Burdett, Walsingbam House, Piccadilly,
London, W.

Monteagle, The Lord, K.P., Mount Trenchard, Foynes, Co. Limerick.
Montebello, La Marquise de, 44 Rue Copernie, Paris.
Montgomery, Mrs., 9 Hartley Road, Exmouth.
*Morell, Mrs. Waldo, 24 Dunster Avenue, Rochdale, Lancashire.
Moreton, Lady Evelyn, 7 Barks ton Gardens, South Kensington,
London, S.W*

Digitized by

446

Members and Associates.

[part

Morison, Mrs. Miller, Morison House, Hetland, Ruthwell, N.B.
Moulton, Mrs. F% A., Credit Lyonnais, 19 Boulevard dee . Italians,
Paris.

Moultrie, Miss Amy J. Q, 44 Tedworth Sq., Chelsea, London, S.W.
Muirbead, Prof. John Henry, 1 York Bd., Edgbaston,. Birmingham.
. Muirhead, Mrs., 40 Marlborough Mansions, Cannon Hill, Finchley

Road, London, N.W.
♦Murray, Donald, M.A., 3 Lombard Court, London, EC.
Murray, George G. Aim4, LL.D., Barford, Churt, Faraham.
Murray, Oswald, 3 Compayne Gardens, South Hampstead,
London, N.W.

Murray,. R. M., M.A., M.B., M.R.C.P.(Edin.), 11 Chester Street*
Edinburgh.

, Murray, T. Douglas, Runnymead Park, Englefield Green, Staines.

Murray, K. G. V., R.I.E.C., Cooper's Hill, Englefield Green.

Musgrove, George H., 31 Grena Road, Richmond, Surrey.

Myers, Dudley B., 6 Middleton Street, Calcutta.

Myers, Mrs. F. W. H., Leckhampton House, Cambridge.

Nash, Joseph, R.I., 36 The Avenue, Bedford Park, London, W.

Neate, P. J., F.G.S., M.T.M.E., Belsize, Watt's. Avenue, Rochester.
♦Newmann, Oscar P., 84 Newman Street, London, W.

Newton, Rev. R. Heber, All Souls Church, Madison Avenue, and

66th Street, New York, U.S.A.
*Nicoll, Mrs. Delancy, Windy mere, Southampton, Long Island, U.S. A
•Nicolls, Mrs., Nicosia, Cyprus.

Nicholson, Sir A., K.C.I.E., C.M.G., British Legation, Tangier,
Morocco.

Nicholson, Sir Charles, Bart., D.C.L., LL.D., M.D., Oakhurst,

Totteridge, Herts.
*Noel-Cox, H. L. N., 11 Oxford Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne.
♦Norman, Mrs. H. G., 5 Southwell Gardens, South Kensington,

London,. S.W.

♦Norris, Prof. . Richard, M.D., F.R.S.E., The Laboratory, Yardley

Fields, Yardley, Birmingham.
Northcote, The Hon. Amyas Stafford, The Thorne, Great Berk-
hampstead.

Nugent, Mrs. Arthur, 36 Albion Street, London, W.

Odgers, Miss M. E.r c/o Rev. A. D. Paterson, Bettencourt, Caminho
Pilar, Funchal, Madeira.
*Ogilvie, Mrs. Robert, c/o R. G. Ross, Esq., 5 Queen St, Edinburgh,
♦Ogilvy, Mrs. N. Hamilton, Biel, Prestonkirk, East Lothian, N.B.

Digitized by

Members and Associates.

447

Oman, Charles W. C., M.A, All Soul's College, Oxford.

Opie, Edward A. Dt, J.P., Pirie Street, Adelaide, South Australia.

Ormrod, Miss Winifred, Pen-y-lan, Ruabon, North Wales. .
*Orr, Mrs. Sutherland, 11 Kensington Park Gardens, Lpndop, W.

Pack Beresford, Denis R., Fen agh House, Bagnalstown, Co.,Carlow.

Paetow, F. C, 24, Queen Anne's Grove, Bedford Park, London, W.

Pagan, Miss C, Marston Lodge, Harrow.

PaUiser, Arthur, jun., 52 Mount Ararat, Richmond, Surrey.
♦Passingham, Mrs., Melrose House, Hill Lane, Shirley, Southampton.

Patterson, C. B., 19 West 31st Street, New York, U.S.A.
•Paul, Herbert G., 106 Wellington Place, Toronto, Ont., Canada.
♦Payne, Ernest, M.A., A.I.EE., Hatchlands, Cuckfield, Sussex.

Pedley, Charles Herbert, Winterley House, near Crewe, .

Pemberton, Miss Hilda, 66 Glebe Placo, Chelsea, London, S.W.

Penn, Mrs. Wm., Taverham Hall, Norwich.

Pennington, Mrs., Langdown House, Hin^head.

Percival, Mrs., 2 Southwick Place, London, W.

Perdicaris, Ion, El Minzah, Tangier, Morocco.

♦Perrez, Dr. Jorge, Puerto de Orotava, Teneriffe, Canary Islands.

Perry, E, C, M.D., M.A., Superintendent's House, Guy's hospital,
London, S.K

Pethybridge, Walter, 3 Rhodesia Road, Clapham Rise, London, S.W.
♦Petrovo-Solovovo, Michael, 6 Quai Francais, St Petersburg.
*Piddington, John George, 87 Sloane Street^ London, S.W,
♦Pilcher, Giles T., 29 Dawson Place, London, W.
*Ping, Wm. B., 2 Mayfield Avenue, Chiswick, London, W.

Pinsent, Mrs. Hume, Lordswood, Harborne, Birmingham.

Piper, John E., LLJ3., 16 Middleton Road, New Wandsworth,
London, S.W.

*Pitt, St. George Lane Fox, Traveller's Club, Pall Mall, London, S.W.
♦Podmore, Frank, M.A., 6 Holly Place, Hampstead, London, N.W.

Ponsonby, Hon. Mrs., 14 West Halkin Str., London, W.

Ponsonby, Miss, Rye Vale, Leixlip, Co. .Kildare.

Pope, George H., M.A., B.C.L., Merchant's Hall, Bristol.
*Popoff, Gen. James, Kamennoostrowsky Prospect, 44/16, St.
Petersburg.

Portsmouth, The Countess of, 2 Abbey Gardens, Westminster,
London, S.W.

u Powel^ Miss Constance M., 5 Camden IJill Square, London, W.

♦Powles, Lewis Charles, M.A., $ Queen's Gate Place, London, W.
; Powys, Hon. Mrs. Fox, 23 Albion Street, Hyde Park, London, W.

Digitized by

448

Members and Associates.

[PABT

Prager, Arnold, L.D.S., 8 Portman Street, London, W.

Pratt* Frederick, E.I.U.S. Club, 16 St James's Square, London, S.W.
♦Pollen, Miss, Milton View, Elsecar, Barnaley, Yorks.

Pumphrey, Mrs., Derwent Hill, Ebchester, Co. Durham.

Purdie, Mrs., 27 Palace Court, London, W.

Purgold, Thomas, 108 Princes Road, Liverpool.

Radnor, Countess of, 12 Upper Brook Street, London, W.

Raggett, Mrs. Daisy, 70 Maida Vale, London, W.

Raikes, Mrs., The Leat House, Malton, Yorkshire.
♦Raikes, His Honour Judge, K.C., The Leat House, Malton, Yorkshire.

Raines, Lady Julius, 46 Sussex Gardens, Hyde Park, London, W.

Ramadan, Miss, Bulstrode, Gerrard's Cross, Bucks.

RAo, D. R. B4Uji, B.A., B.L., High Court Vakil, Singrachari
Street, Triplicane, Madras.

Raper, R. W., M.A., Trinity College, Oxford.
♦Rashdall, Rev. Hastings, M.A., D.C.L., New College, Oxford.

Rathbone, John, Mystic, Connecticut, U.S.A.

Raupert, J. G. F., 30 Belsize Square, London, N.W.
*Raworth, Edwin, 5 South Park Road, Harrogate.

Reade, Herbert V., 32 Palace Gardens Terrace, Kensington, Lon-
don, W.

Reynolds, Mrs., Millington House, Thelwall, Nr. Warrington.

Richardson, Frederic W., F.C.S., Broad Oak, Oak Avenue, Bradford.

Rickard, William T., 38 Treleth Road, Askam-in-Furness, Lancashire.
♦Ridley, Miss, Stagshaw, Daleham Gardens, London, N.W.
♦Ridley, Henry N., M.A., F.L.S., Singapore.

Roberts, Rev. W. W., 39 Addison Gardens, Kensington, London, W.
Robertson, Mrs., Nether Scale Hall, Ashby-de-la Zouch.
Robertson, George M., M.B., The Copse, Larbert, N.R
Robinson, George R., 31 James Street, Liverpool.
Robinson, Lady, 5 Cromwell Houses, London, S.W.
Rodewald, Alfred E., The Albany, Liverpool.

♦Rogers, Rev. E. H., M.A., Foxley Lodge, West Worthing, Sussex.
♦Rogers, George F., MJL, M.D., 4 King's Parade, Cambridge.
♦Rothschild, Mrs. Leopold de, 5 Hamilton Place, London, W.
Roupnevsky-Greyber, Madame m. Orloff, No. 51 Trerskaia Sadovaia,

Moscow, Russia.
Riicker, Miss, 4 Yanbrugh Terrace, Blackheath, London, S.E.
♦Riicker, Sir A. W., F.R.S., 19 Gladhow Gardens, London, S.W.
♦Rumsey, Charles Almaric, M.A., 33 Hawke Road, Upper Norwood,
London, S.E.

Digitized by

XLV.]

Members and Associates.

449

Ruahton, Charles H., 8 Billiter Square, London, E.C.
Russell, Mrs. Campbell, Golden Mead, Chislehurst.
Russell, Rev. T. H., St. Martin's Vicarage, Gospel Oak, London, N.W.
Ryves, Miss Evangeline, 4 Bawton Road, Uxbridge.
Ryves, Miss Miriam G. B., 99 Hereford Road, Bayswater, Lon-
don, W.

Sampson, Colonel Dudley, Buxshalls, Lindfield, Hayward's Heath.
Sanders, Mrs., 33 Buckingham Palace Mansions, Grosvenor Gardens,
London, S.W. ,

♦Sarawak, Ranee of, Villa Raffo Bogliasco, nr. Genoa, Italy.

Sartoni, Signorina Julia, 5 Piazza Donatello, Florence.

Saunders, Latimer Henry, Trevone House, Padstow.
♦Savory, Mrs. Agnes R., 31 Bramham Gardens, South Kensington,
London, S.W.

♦Scatcherd, Miss F. R, Ringmore House, Quarry Road, Hastings.
♦Schiller, F. C. S., M.A., Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
Schmidt, Julius, Cornwall Cottage, 582 Woolwich Road, Charlton,
London, S.E.

Schreiner, Miss Julia, 56 Eaton Square, London, S.W.

Schultze, Dr. Otto, Markt 4, Merseburg, Germany.

Schupp, Dr. Falk, 22 Sonnenstrasse, Munich.

Schuster, Miss, 22 Old Queen Street, Westminster, London, S.W.

Schwabe, Mrs. G. S., Lieutenant Governor's House, Chelsea Hos-
pital, London, S.W.
♦Scott, Sydney C, Hatherleigh, 28 The Avenue, Gipsy Hill, 8.E.

Scull, Mrs., The Pines, 2 Langland Gardens, Hampstead, Lon-
don, N.W.

♦Sellin, Prof C. W., Ansbacher Strasse 47, in., Berlin, W.
Selous, Mrs., 15 Fitzgeorge Avenue, Kensington, London, W.
Selous, Edmund, 19 Clarence Square, Cheltenham.
Seymour, Admiral Sir E. H., G.C.B., 9 Ovington Square,

London, S.W.
Shadwell, Miss Blanche, Trewollack, Bodmin.
Shand, Alexander F., 1 Edwardes Place, Kensington, London, W.
♦Sharpe, J. W., M.A., WoodroflFe, Portarlington Rd., Bournemouth.
Shaw, Mrs. W. N., 10 Moreton Gardens, London, S.W.
Shaw, Rev. Charles J. M., The Orchard, Swanley, Kent.
♦Shove, Miss E., K.Q.P.I., M.B., 25 St Mark's Crescent, Regent's

Park, London, N.W.
Shuttleworth, Miss C. J., 10 Cottesmore Gardens, Kensington,
London, W.

Digitized by Google

450

Members and Associates.

*Sidgwick, Arthur, M.A., 64 Woodstock Koad, Oxford.

Sidgwick, Mrs. Edward, 25 Collingfaam Road, London, S.W.
♦Sidgwick, Mrs. H., Newnham College, Cambridge.

Sivudu, Rayasam Venkata, B.A., L.T., Assistant, Rajah's College,
Parlakomedi (Dr. Ganjam), Madras Presidency, India.

Skeffington, Joseph B., M.A., LL.D., Waterford, Ireland.
♦Sloane, Geo. O., B.A., Cadzow House, Westbourne Park Road,
Bournemouth West.

Sloley, Aubrey L., Savanna la Mar, Jamaica, W.L

Smith, A. J. Hugh, Mount Clare, Roehampton, London, S.W.

Smith, Adolphe, 12 Crookham Road, Fulham, London, S.W.

Smith, Mrs. Apsley,

Smith, Miss Beatrice E., Lea, Grange-over-Sands, Lancashire.
Smith, D. R. Crawfurth, 1 Whitehall Place, London, S.W.
Smith, G. Albert, St. Ann's Well, Brighton.
Smith, George M., Custom House, Scarborough.
Smith, H. Babington, B.A., C.S.I., Dette Publique Ottomane,
Constantinople.

♦Smith, Henry Arthur, 7 Queen's Mansions, Brook Green, London, W.

Smith, Miss J. M., 41 Queen's Gate, London, W.
♦Smith, Philip Sherwood, 46 Johnson Park, Buffalo, N.Y., U.S.A.

Smith, Reginald A., B.A., 78 Cranwich Road, Amherst Park,
London, N.

Smith, Rev. Sidney Marshall, Hebden Bridge Vicarage, Yorkshire.

Smith, W. Johnson, Pengelly House, Beaulieu Road, Westbourne,
Bournemouth.

Smithson, Mrs., 42 Tilehouse Street, Hitct)in.

Snape, Mrs., Rockcliffe, Staveley Road, Eastbourne.
♦Snow, Chester A., 712 Eighth Street, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Sodemann, Car], 47 Mark Lane, London, E.C.
♦Speer, Charlton T., Glenhurst, The Common, Sutton, Surrey.
♦Spencer, Cyril E., Papho, Cyprus.

Spencer, Miss Georgiana M., 25 York Street, Portman Square,
London, W.

Sperling, Arthur, J.P., Lattenbury Hill, St Ives, Hunts.
Stackelberg, Baron Charles de, 3 Moschkow Pereoulok, St Petersburg,
Russia.

♦Stange, Miss, 67 Princes Gate, London, W.

♦Stanley, Sir Henry M., G.C.B., D.C.L., LL.D., 2 Richmond

Terrace, London, S.W.
Stannard, Mrs. J., County Club, 21 Hanover Square, London, W.

Digitized by Google

Members and Associates.

451

Stansfeld, Miss, The Sesame Club, Dover Street, Piccadilly,
London, W.

Stapley, Mrs., 33 Bloomsbury Square, London, W.C.
Stead, William T,, Cambridge House, Wimbledon, London, S.W.
Steen, Miss Maud, Sharv<agh, Bushmills, Co. Antrim.
Stephens, Mrs., 41 Harrington Gardens, London, S.W.
♦Stephenson, Sir Augustus K., K.C.B., K.C., 46 Ennismore Gardens,
London, S.W.

Stevenson, Andrew, M.A, 16 Warrender Park Crescent, Edinburgh.
Stewart, Mrs. C. A., Larghan, Coupar Angus, N.B.
Stirling, J. M. Monies, Gogar House, Stirling, N.B.
. Stout, George F., M. A., 137 Woodstock Road, Oxford.
Strachey,. Charles, Colonial Office, Downing Street, London, S.W.
♦Strachey, John St. Loe, Spectator Office, 1 Wellington Street,

Strand, London, W.C.
Stratton, F. J. M., Raymead, 14 Harborne Road, Edgbaston,

Birmingham.

Strong, Rev. Charles, D.D., St. Kilda East, Melbourne, Australia.
Sturge, Miss M. Carta, 96 Slone Street, London, S.W.
♦Sturgis, Julian, M.A., Wancote, Compton, Guildford.
Sutton, Mrs., 49 Lexham Gardens, London, W.
Sweeney, Hubert J. P., Balliol House, Toynbee Hall, London, E.
Sweetman, G. Drysdale, Windsor House, St. Thomas Street,
Ryde, I.W.

*Swire, Commander H., R.N., Buxton Lodge, Rodwell, Weymouth.
Szentirmay de Darvasto, Bela Maria Joseph de, Austro-Hungarian

Consulate, Cairo, Egypt.
Talbot, Capt Frederick G., Rifle Brigade, 15 Cromwell Road,

London, S.W.
♦Talbot, Lady,

Tate, T. B., R.I.E.C., Allenburn, Alnwick.
Tate, Mrs. W. J., Castle View, Strood, Rochester.
Taylor, Rev. Arnold D., B.A, Churchstanston Rectory, Honiton,
Devon,

♦Taylor, Rev. Charles J., M.A, Ashlawn, Blandford Road, Reigate,
Surrey.

♦Taylor, Lieut-Col. G. L. Le M., 6 College Lawn, Cheltenham.
Tebb, Mrs., Rede Hall, near Burstow, by Horley, Surrey.
Telbin, Miss, Eldon House, West Hill Road, Bournemouth.
Temple, Reginald W., Ashley House, Shaftesbury Avenue, Lon-
don, W.C.

Digitized by Google

452

Members and Associates.

Tennant, Mrs. C. C, 5 Sloane Court, Lower Sloane Street, London,
S.W,

Thomas, Rev. C. D., 20 The Avenue, Bickley, Kent.
♦Thomas, J. Whitridge, 68 Upper Church Street* Oswestry.
•Thomas, J. W., F.T.C., F.C.S., Overdale, Shortlands, Kent.
♦Thomas, N. W., 20 Hanover Square, London, W.

Thompson, I. C, F.L.S., F.R.M.S., 53 Croxteth Road, Liverpool.
"Thompson, Robert A., 2 Westleigh Road, Narboro Road, Leicester.

Thompson, Mrs. Edmond, 87 South Hill Park, Hampstead, Lon-
don, N.W.

♦Thomson, Edward John, Montgomerie, Tarbolton, Ayrshire.
♦Thomson, Professor J. J., M.A., F.R.S., Trinity College, Cambridge.

Thomson, W. B., 22 Wallford Road, Leytonstone, Essex.

Thornhill, Miss, The Hautboy Hotel, Ockham, Surrey.

Thornton, W. M., M.Sc. (Vict), Durham College of Science, New-
castle-on-Tyne.

Thurn and Taxis, H.I.H. the Princess Alexander of, Lautschin,
Nimburg, Bohemia, Austria.

Thurstan, F. W., M.A., Riverfield, Old Windsor.

Toby, Ernest 6., 15 Wray Crescent, Tollington Park, London, N.
♦Torre, Mrs. E. F., 9 Cumberland Terrace, Regent's Park, Lon-
don, N.W.

Trafford, Mrs. Galfrid de, 13 Albemarle Street, London, W.
♦Tuckey, C. Lloyd, M.D., 88 Park Street, Grosvenor Square, Lon-
don, W.

Turner, Major General Alfred K, C.B., 21 Tite Street, London, S.W.
Turner, Sydney, Caius College, Cambridge.
♦Tweedale, Mrs., Balquholly, Turiff, N.B.
Twining, Mrs. Ada L., c/o Messrs. Baring Bros. & Co», London, E.C.
Tyrer, Mrs. W.t Woodleigh, Prescot
Tyrone, Jorge O'Neill de, 59 Rua das Flores, Lisbon.
Van Eeden, Frederik, M.D., Walden, Bussum, Holland.
Van Renterghem, A. W., M.D., 251 Keisersgracht, Amsterdam.
Van Velsen, Dr. Prosper, 79 Rue St Francois, Brussels.
Venables, Rev. Herbert A., M.A., 28 Viale Principe Amedeo,
Florence.

#Verrall, Mrs., 5 Selwyn Gardens, Cambridge.
Verrall, Miss M. E., 26 Gloucester Place, Brighton.
Vesme, C&ar Baudi de, 6 Rue Saulnier, Paris.
Vian-WiUiams, Rev. H., 3 Waterloo Place, North Shields.
Vickers, Mrs., 35 Park Street, Grosvenor Square, London, W.

Digitized by

xlv.] Members and Associates. 453

Villamarina, The Marchesa di, Palazza Reale, Quirinale, Some.
♦Vincent, W. James, M.B., B.S., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., South York-
shire Asylum, Wadsley, Sheffield.
Wakefield, Captain H. G. R., Prince of Wales' Leinster Regiment,

17 Warwick Road, Maida Hill, London, W.
Walker, Miss Madeline J., 107 Queen's Gate, London, S.W.
Wall, Miss M. M., 100 Chelsea Gardens, London, S.W.
♦Wallace, Abraham, M.D., 39 Harley Street, London, W.
Ward, The Hon. Kathleen, Castle Ward, Downpatrick.
Warrender, Miss Margaret, 87 Eaton Square, London, S.W.
Wassell, H. A., F.R.A.S., Addenbrook Villa, Old Swinford,
Stourbridge.

Way, Wm. R., Cranham Lodge, Upminster, Essex.

Wedd, N., M.A., King's College, Cambridge.
♦Wells, E. P., C.E., The Limes, 94 Larkhall Rise, Clapham, S.W.
♦Westcott, William Wynn, M.B., D.P.H., 396 Camden Road,
London, N.

Western, Rev. W. T., M.A., Bartlow Rectory, Linton, Cambridgeshire.
•Westlake, Ernest, F.G.S., Fordingbridge, Salisbury.
Whamond, J. Robbie, 15 Langland Gardens, Finchley Road,
London, N.W.

Wheatley, G. c/o. Messrs. Grindlay <fc Co., 54 Parliament Street,
London, S.W.

Whishaw, Mrs. Bernhard, 19 Sion Hill, Clifton, Bristol.
Whitaker, Joseph J. S., Villa Malfitano, Palermo, Sicily.
♦White, Leedham, F.C.S., 16 Wetherby Gardens, London, S.W.
White, Miss, 70 West Street, Brighton.

White, Mrs., 133 Lordship Road, Stoke Newington, London, N.
♦Whitehead, Miss Mercia D., The Grove, Newnham, Cambridge.
♦Whiting, J. Markby, 17 Copse Hill, Wimbledon, London, S.W.

Wigan, Rev. Herbert, M.A., Luddesdowne, near Gravesend.

Wigan, W. L., Clare Cottage, East Mailing, Maidstone.

Wild, Ernest E., B.A., LL.M., 1 Garden Court, Temple, London, E.C.

Willett, Mrs., Bedales, Lindfield, near Hay wards Heath, Sussex.

Williams, J. Fischer, 7 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London, W.C.

Williams, A. C. Redshawe, 14 Sherborne Lane, London, KG.
♦Williams, Col. S. de la Grange, Broomie Close, Sutton Coldfield,
Birmingham.

Wilson, Miss, c/o Miss F. Wilson, The Cottage, West Ayton, York.
Wilson, Mrs. C. Stuart, c/o Capt. C. S. Wilson, Trematon, The
Thicket, Southsea.

Digitized by Google

454

Members anil Associates.

[pabt

♦Wilson, Robert, M.I.E.C.E., 7 St. Andrews Place, Regent's Park,
London, N.W.

Winder, W. Gilgross, 12 Grange Road, Sharrow, Sheffield.
Wingfield, Miss K., 7 Harkston Gardens, South Kensington,
London, 8.W.

Wingfield, H. K, M.A., M.D., B.C., 25 St. Swithun Street,
Winchester.

Witherby, Arthur George, B.A., 7 Essex Street, Strand, London, W.C.

Wolff, Baroness Kitty, 7 Basseinaia, St. Petersburg, Russia.

Wood, Lionel, 4 Simonside Terrace, Heaton, Newcastle-on-Tyne.

Woodhull, Miss Zula Maud, 17 Hyde Park Gate, London, W.
♦Woods, John F., M.D., Hoxton House Asylum, London, N.

Woodward, Miss Mabel, 18 Harborne Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham.
♦Wooldridge, H. B., 19 Lymiugton Road, West Hampstead, Lon-
don, N.W.

♦Worsfold, Mrs. Basil, 3 Pump Court, Temple, London, RC.

Wrey, Mrs., Tawstock Rectory, Barnstaple, North Devon.
*Wrey, Miss Florence, Falklands, Fleet, Hants.

Wright, William, M.B., F.R.C.S., The University, Birmingham.

Wyld, George, M.D., 79 Mount Ephraim, Tunbridge Wells.
♦Wyndham, Hon. Percy, 44 Belgrave Square, London, W.

Yaroschenko, Madame, Hotel de la Grande Bretagne, Cannes,
France.

Yegounoff, Mile. Nina, 62 Staroporto, Francovskaia, Odessa.
♦Yorke, Hon. Alexander, 10 Granville Place, London, W.
Young, Rev. H., 28 Moore St., Chelsea, London, S.W.
Young, James F., Bryntesog Villa, New Road, Llanelly, South
Wales.

Young, Professor W. H., 883 East Main Street, Columbus, Ohio,
U.S.A.

Zagury, Leon, 12 Emanuel Avenue, Acton, London, W.
Zahn, G. P. H., Weistraat 83, Utrecht, Holland.

N.B. — Members and Associates are requested to send information of any
change of address to the Secretary, 20 Hanover Square, London, JF.

Digitized by

xlv.] Members and Associates. 455

MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATES OF THE AMERICAN

BRANCH.

(January, 1903.)
An asterisk is prefixed to the names of Members.

All Addresses are " U.S.A.11 except where another country is named.

Abbey, Miss Charlotte, M.D., 204 South 7th Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
Adams, Mrs. Albert J., Netherland Hotel, 59th Street and 5th

Avenue, New York City.
Adams, George S., M.D., Insane Hospital, Westboro, Mass.
Agelasto, Michael A, Box 485, Norfolk, Va.
Albery, Mrs. H. M., Colusa, Colusa Co., Cal.
Albree, John, Jun., Swampscott, Mass.
Albree, Ralph, 187 Western Avenue, Allegheny, Pa.
Aldrich, W. F., Rajah Lodge, Aldrich, Alabama.
Alexander, E. P., Georgeton, S.C.
Allen, B. B., 125 South Spruce Street, Nashville, Tenn.
Allen, C. S., Rooms 114-115, Burr Block, Lincoln, Neb.
Ames, Miss Evelyn, 355 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Mass.
Anderson, Prof. A. W., Macalester College, St. Paul, Minn.
Anderson, 0. W., 512 Masonic Temple, Minneapolis, Minn.
Arguelles, Don Pedro, Gobernador del Estado Famaulipas, C. Victoria,

Mexico.

At water, Horace G., Norfolk, St. Lawrence Co., N.Y.
Atwood, Dr. G. Wilson, 17 Tremont Street, Boston, Mass.
Ayer, Mrs. H. H., c/o New York World, Manhattan, New York City.
Bailey, Walter, 51 East Maumee Street, Adrian, Mich.
Baker, Alfred L., 2641 Prairie Avenue, Chicago, 111.
Baker, W. H, 341 Jersey Street, Buffalo, N.Y.
Ballantine, Mrs. Richard H, 48 Buckingh am Street, Cambridge, Mass.
Bancroft, Dr. C. P., Supt. N.H. Insane Asylum, Concord, N.H.
Bancroft, Miss M., Haddonfield Training School, Haddonfield, N.J.
♦Barker, Mrs. C. F., 3914 Ellis Avenue, Chicago, 111.
Barrett, Harrison D., Box 3, Needham, Mass.

Digitized by Google

456

Members and Associates.

[PABT

♦Barrows, C. M., 386 Newbury Street, Boston, Mass.
♦Bartlett, James W., 211 Central Avenue, Dover, N.H.

Batcheller, Mrs. Francis, 270 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Mass.

Bayley, Mrs. Emily E., 1438 Poplar Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
*Bayley, Weston D., M.D., S.-E. cor. 15th and Poplar Streets,
Philadelphia, Pa.

Beam, Mrs. John V., Jun., 10 West 30th Street, New York City.
Beebe, C. E., 408 West 9th Street, Chattanooga, Tenn.
Beeson, Hannibal A., M.D., Leesburg, Ohio.

Belden, Mrs. Amanda W., Virginia Hotel, cor. North St and

Rush St., Chicago, 111.
Bell, Clark (summer), Dundee, N.Y. ; (winter) Medico Legal Journal,

39 Broadway, New York City.
Benskin, Frederick G., 1410 Fulton Street, Canton, Ohio.
Berg, Philip, Taylor, Wisconsin.

Berger, Alex., c/o Central Granaries Co., Lincoln, Neb.
Blaine, Mrs. Emmons, 344 Erie Street, Chicago, III
Blakesley, Theo. S., M.D., Belvidere Park, Fontana, Walworth Co ,
Wis.

Block, Louis, 211 Main Street, Davenport, Iowa.

Blodgett, C, M.D., c/o General Delivery, San Francisco, CaL

Blossom, Miss Mary C, 46 East 21st Street, New York City.

Boardman, Hon. W. F., Department of the Interior, Ottawa, Canada.

Borum, Miss Addie A., Rural Route 1, Attica, Indiana.

Both-Hendriksen, Miss Louise, 166 Macon Street, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Bourne, Mrs. C. Griswold, 1 West 68th Street, New York City.
•Bowditch, C. P., 28 State Street, Boston, Mass.

Bowditch, Prof. H. P., Jamaica Plain, Mass.

Bowen, Miss Anna C, 210 E. Main Street, Batavia, N.Y.

Boyd, Mrs. Ella F., Hyde Park, Mass.
♦Bradley, Miss A. A., Hingham, Mass.

Bradley, Arthur C, Newport, New Hampshire.

Brewster, Edwin T., Andover, Mass.

Br om berg, Frederick G., Mobile, Alabama.

Brooks, Mrs. A. S., 31 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, Minn.

Brooks, Henry, 40 State Street, Room 16, Boston, Mass.

Brown, Alfred S., 160 West 76th Street, New York City.

Brown, Miss Ella, Canaan, Conn.

Brown, Henry T., Hillcrest, Winchester, Mass.

Brown. Mm. H. T., Hillcrest, Winchester, Mass.

Br ward N., P.O. Box 91, South Framingham, Mass.

Digitized by Google

XLV.] Members and Associates. 457

*Browii, Mrs. Samuel R., 2501 Farnam Street, Omaha, Neb.
Brundage, J. M., Andover State Bank, Andover, N.Y.
Brush, W. Franklin, 16 East 37th Street, New York City.
Buffet, Dr. E. P., (New 804) 520 Bergen Avenue, Jersey City, N.J.
Bullard, Dr. W. N., 89 Marlborough Street, Boston, Mass.
Bulley, R. H., Canton, Ohio.

Bundy, Mrs. John C, 624 Sheridan Square, Evanston, 111.
Burgess, Dr. 0. 0., 373 Geary Street, San Francisco, Cal.
Butin, Dr. J. L., B Street, Madera, Cal.
Callender, Ira S., Galesburg, 111.

Capron, Mrs. Cynthia J., 340 South Galena Avenue, Freeport, 111.

Card-Catlin, Mrs. Lovisa, 726 French Street, Erie, Pa.

Carey, Mrs. A. A., 144 Brattle Street, Cambridge, Mass.
*Carnochan, Gouverneur M., 44 New Street, New York City.

Carpenter, Mrs. Franklin R., 1420 Josephine Street, Denver, Colo.

Carpenter, Prof. G. R., Columbia University, New York City.

Carr, Lucien, 163 Brattle Street, Cambridge, Mass.

Carringer, M. A., Marienville, Pa.
*Carrington, Hereward, P.O. Box 537, Minneapolis, Minn.

Casey, Theodore B., The Empire, 333 Commonwealth Avenue,
Boston, Mass.

Cassatt, Miss Mary, 10 Rue de Marignan, Paris, France.
Chapman, Hon. Geo. T., 290 Pearl Street, Cleveland, Ohio.
Chard, Thomas S., 534 North State Street, Chicago, 111.
Chase, G. N. (Lieut. U.S. Army, Rtd.), Neosho, Missouri.
Chase, Harvey S., 8 Congress Street, Boston, Mass.
Chase, Thorington C, Manila, P.I. (Colasi, Island of Panay).
Chatwin, James, 926 Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa.
Cheney, Dr. Frederick E., 120 Marlborough Street, Boston, Mass.
Cheney, W. T., Box 184, Rome, Ga.

Christine, G. Maxwell, A.M., M.D., 2043 N. 12th Street, Phila-
delphia, Pa.

Clarke, Miss Rebecca S., Box 212, Norridgewock, Maine.
♦Clarke, Mrs. Alice J., 506 North 7th Street, Vincennes, Ind.
Cleaveland, Rev. Willis M., Winchester, New Hampshire.
Closson, Dr. James H., 53 West Chelten Avenue, Germantown, Pa.
Clothier, Mrs. F. C, 55 Day Street, Fredonia, N.Y.
Clough, Albert L., Box 114, Manchester, N.H.
Coe, Miss M.A., 96 Chesnut Street, Boston, Mass.
Coffin, Abraham B., Box 131, Winchester, Mass.
Coleman, Geo. E., San Dimas, Los Angeles Co., Cal.

Digitized by

458

Members and, Associates.

[part

Collins, Wm. G., 261 West 85th Street* New York City.
Conklin, Eoland R., 35 East 72nd Street, New York City.
Cook, Rev. C. H., Ph.D., 1906 Pearl Street, Denver, Colo.
Coolidge, J. T., Junr., 114 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass.
Cope, Porter F., 4806 Chester Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa.
Cox, Miss Jean W., The Lindens, Haddonfield, N.J.
Cox, Mrs. Rowland, 310 West 7th Street, Plainfield, N.J.
Cozens, J. C, Amsterdam, N.Y.

Craige, Wm. C, 409 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
Crane, A. J., 218 Walnut Street, Montclair, N.J.
Crawford, Mrs. Andrew, 109 Pine Grove Avenue, Lake View,
Chicago, 111.

Crosby, Prof. W. O., Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass.
Crothers, Dr. T. D., Walnut Lodge, Hartford, Conn.
Crutcher, Ernest, M.D., Great Falls, Montana.
Currier, Mrs. Moody, Manchester, N.H.
♦Curtis, W. E., 14 West 20th Street, Manhattan, New York City.
Cushing, Miss Eleanor P., 76 Elm Street, Northampton, Mass.
Dailey, Judge A. H., 16 Court Street, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Dale, Allan, 110 St. Nicholas Ave., New York City.
Davidson, H. A., 177 Montague Street, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Dawson, Miles M., 11 Broadway, New York City.
Delabarre, Prof. E. B., 9 Arlington Avenue, Providence, R.I.
Delgado, F. Cadenas, Caracas, Venezuela, South America.
Demming, Benj. W., Harrisburg, Pa.
De Prez, Eugene, 1612a Semple Avenue, St. Louis, Mo.
Derby, Major George Mc. C, 3232 Prytania St., New Orleans, La.
Des Islets, Prof. C. M., 69 Wilson Avenue, Allegheny, Pa.
Devine, Andrew, 145 Broadway, New York City.
De Witt, Mrs. Harriet, Brandmoor, Colorado Springs, Colo.
Dexter, Mrs. George, 39 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Mass.
Dickey, Calvin, M.A., Rooms 45-46 Lenox Building, 90 Washington

Street, Chicago, 111.
Doane, Mrs. W. E., Stockbridge, Mass.
Dodds, W. H., 518 Fourth Avenue, Pittsburg, Pa.
Dodge, Joseph T., 203 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wis.
Donaldson, James W., Ellen ville, N.Y.
Dorr, George B., 18 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Mass.
Dougherty, Mrs. Jennie W., c/o Dr. F. W. Atkinson, DepU of

Education, Manila, P.I.
Dow, Alexander, 47 West 43rd Street, New York City.

Digitized by

XLV.]

Members and Associates.

459

Dowd, Miss Alice M., 137 Grove Street, Stamford, Conn.
Drake, Mrs. A. J., Auburndale, Mass.
♦Draper, George Otis, Hopedale, Mass.
Duggin, Mrs. Chas., 25 East 38th Street, New York City.
Dyer, Walter H., Knightsville, Maine.
Eager, George R., Auburndale, Mass.
Edmunds, Miss L., 5 Boylston Place, Boston, Mass.
Eldridge, Prof. K H., Simmons College, 30 Huntington Avenue,
Boston, Mass.

Eldridge, John R., M.D., 1060 K Street, Fresno, Cal.
Elliott, Miss Alma C, 167 South Water Street, Chicago, 111.
Ely, Robert E., 23 West 44th Street, New York City.
Esty, Prof. Win. C, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.
Evans, Miss Ella K., 186 North Street, Buffalo, N.Y.
Evans, Mark G., 409 Mining Exchange Building, Denver, Colo.
Feudner, J., Rushville, Indiana.

Fillebrown, Thos., M.D., D.M.D., 157 Newbury St., Boston, Mass.
Finnigan, John, 61 Beekman Street, New York City.
Fisher, L. S., Sparta, Wisconsin.

Flower, Mrs. George W., 615 Fifth Avenue, New York City.
Flower, Sydney, 30-31 The Auditorium, Chicago, 111.
Fogarty, Wm., c/o American Oak Tanning Co., New Decatur, Ala.
♦Forman, G. A., 826 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, N.Y.
Frankland, Frederick W., 346 Broadway, New York City.
Franklin, Mrs. Anne R., 2015 Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida.
Freeman, Mrs. W. H., Box 322, Hinsdale, 111.
Fyke, E. E., M.D., Centralia, 111.

Gable, Geo. A., Room 319, Wainwright Building, St. Louis, Mo.
*Gage, Hon. Lyman J., 667 Madison Avenue, New York City.
*Gale, Prof. Harlow S., Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.

Gardiner, Prof. H. N., 23 Crafts Avenue, Northampton, Mass.
♦Gardiner, Prof. J Hays, 18 Gray's Hall, Harvard Univ., Cam-
bridge, Mass.

Garvin, M. T., Lancaster, Pa.

Gay, Walter, 73 Rue Ampere, Paris, France.

Gehring, Albert, 109 Edgewater Street, Cleveland, Ohio.

Gehring, Dr. J. G., Bethel, Maine.

♦Gerrisb, Dr. F. H., 675 Congress Street, Portland, Maine.
Goddard, George A., 10 Tremont Street, Boston, M
Goodale, Henry Sterling, Buckingham, Ya.
Goodnow, H. R., 95 Riverside Drive, New York

-Digitized by

460

Members and Associates.

[part

Graham, T. B., 26 West 50th Street, New York City.
Grant, Mrs. Lincoln, 223 Aspinwall Avenue, Brookline, Mass.
Gray, Henry G., 135 Madison Avenue, New York City.
Gray, Mrs. John C, 176 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass.
Green, Ralph K., 712 Railroad Avenue, Spokane, Wash.
Greene, Bertram, 6 Louisburg Square, Boston, Mass.
Gridley, J. N., Virginia, 111.

Griffin, Mrs. J., Illinois Trust and Savings Bank, Chicago, 111.

Griffing, Mrs. Jane R., 124 Lexington Avenue, New York City.
♦Grower, George G., Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., Ansonia, Conn.

Haines, Oliver S., M.D., 137 North 15th Street, Philadelphia, Pa.

Hall, Wm. Franklin, 103 Thurston Street, Somerville, Mass.

Hanna, Carl L., 102 N. Jefferson Street, Newcastle, Pa.

Hanson, H. P., c/o R. F. D., Route No. 2, Harlan, Iowa.

Hardaway, W. A., M.D., 2922 Locust Street, St. Louis, Mo.

Harriman, T. G., B.S., M.D., Hampton, Iowa.

Harris, F., 1303 N. Garrison Avenue, St. Louis, Mo.

Harris, John S., 46 East Broadway, Room 10, Butte, Montana.
*Hartness, James, Springfield, Vermont.

"Hartshorn, Miss Cornelia, c/o £. T. Moulton, 4 Market Square,
Providence, R.L

Hartshorne, Charles H., 239 Washington Street, Jersey City, N.J.
♦Haworth, George D., Decatur, 111.

Hayes, Rev. C. H., Gen. Theological Seminary, Chelsea Square,
New York City.

Haynes, Henry W., 239 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass.

Hay ward, Alvinza, San Mateo, Cal.

Hebard, Charles, M.D., Mondovi, Wis.

Heilner, Rev. S. A., D.D., Olney, Philadelphia, Pa.
*Hemenway, Augustus, Readville, Mass.

Henrici, Jacob, 6126 Penn. Avenue, Pittsburg, Pa.

Henry, Mrs. Thos. S., 1177 Broad Street, Newark, N.J.

Henshaw, Mrs. Harriet A., 1760 N. Street, Washington, D.C.

Heysinger, Dr. Isaac W., 1521 Poplar Street, Philadelphia, Pa.

Hey wood, Charles, 131 Devonshire Street, Boston, Mass.

Hicks, Benj. D., Old Westbury, Queen's Co., N.Y.
♦Higbee, Col. George H., Burlington, Iowa.

Hillman, Hugh H., Bank of Commerce Building, Oklahoma, O.T.
Hodgson, Richard, LL.D., 5 Boylston Place, Boston, Mass.
Hodgson, Dr. Thomas, Gertrude Street, Melbourne, Australia.
Hoffman, Prof. F. S., Union College, Schenectady, N.Y.

Digitized by

XLV.]

Members and Associates.

461

Hogg, Andrew, 537 West 9th Street, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Holbrook, Francis W., Haworth, N.J.
*Holbrook, Levi, P.O. Box 536, New York City.

Holladay, Prof. Waller, 120 Broadway, New York City.

Holmes, Dr. H. P., 512 Second Avenue, Troy, N.Y.

Holmes, Prof. Jesse H., Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa.
♦Holt, Mrs. A. Stewart, 224 West 132nd Street, New York City.
♦Holt, Henry, 29 West 23rd Street, New York City.

Holt, Dr. L. E., 14 West 55th Street, New York City.

Howe, H. A. Newfane, Vermont.

Hubbell, G. G., Room 12, Glen Bldg., Cincinnati, Ohio.

Hudson, Thomson Jay, 1028 Trumball Avenue, Detroit, Mich.

Huidekopee, Mrs. Arthur C, Meadville, Pa.

Hume, W. Hector H, 62 West 9th Street, New York City.

Hunt, Mrs. G. S., 165 State Street, Portland, Maine.

Huse, Wm., Klamath Falls, Oregon.

Husted, A. D., M.D., 73 Allen Avenue, Pittsburg, Pa.

Hutchinson, Henry K, 89 Lee Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y.
♦Hyslop, Prof. J. H., 519 West 149th Street, New York City.
♦Ireland, Gordon, Holyoke House 21, Cambridge, Mass.
♦James, Dr. H. F., 331 N. Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, Mo.
♦James, Prof. William, 95 Irving Street, Cambridge, Mass.
. Jamison, A. B., M.D., 43 West 45th Street, New York City.
♦Jefferson, J., Buzzard's Bay, Mass.

♦Jenks, Mrs. P. A., 290 Marlborough Street, Boston, Mass.
Johnson, Charles R, Box 492, 405 Main Street, Worcester, Mass.
Johnson, H. P., Ithaca, N.Y.

Johnson, Prof. Roger, B.C., Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.
Joline, Mrs. Adrian H., 1 West 72nd Street, New York City.
Jones, C. H., c/o J. P. Willis & Bros., Galveston, Texas.
Jones, Francis R., 27 State Street, Boston, Mass.
Jones, Mrs. Gilbert E., 222 Madison Avenue, New York City.
Joss, Rev. A. A., Bismark, N.D.
Judah, Noble B., 2701 Prairie Avenue, Chicago, 111.
Kempton, C. W., c/o Percy B. M'Coy, 29 Broadway, New York City.
Kennedy, Harris, M.D., Readville, Mass.
Kimball, Dr. F. H, Rockford, 111.
♦Kimball, Miss Hannah P., 317 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass.
Kingsbury, Hon. B. B., Box 1107 Defiance, Ohio.
Kinraide, T. R, 38 Spring Park Avenue, Jamaica Plain, Mass.
Kline, Wm. W., 725 North Fifth Street, Reading, Pa.

Digitized by Google

462

Members and Associates.

[part

Klock, Prof. James £., Plymouth, New Hampshire.
Knowles, Hon. Hiram, Butte, Montana.

Kohnstamm, Emil V., Hotel Endicott, Columbus Avenue and 81st

Street, New York City.
Kopta, Madame Flora P., Corning, Tehama Co., California.
Krebs, G. W. C, 17 North Street, Baltimore, Md.
Krebs, Rev. Stanley L., A.M., Greensburgh, Pa.
Laflin, Louis E., 369 Erie Street, Chicago, 111.
Laflin, Mrs. Louis K, 369 Erie Street* Chicago, 111.
Lanahan, Mrs. Charles, 1209 St Paul Street, Baltimore, Md.
Langley, Prof. S. P., Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
♦Lawrence, A. E., 53 Devonshire Street, Boston, Mass.
Law ton, Miss Elizabeth, 176 West 87th Street, New York City.
Lawton, Mrs. Ella Beck with, 516 Abercorn Street, Savannah, Ga.
Layman, Alfred, M.D., 1630 North 18th Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
Leavitt, Dr. Sheldon, 4665 Lake Avenue, Chicago, 111.
Ledyard, Mrs. R F. H., c/o J. S. Morgan & Co., 22 Old Broad Str.,

London, E.C.

Leonard, Thomas, 628 N. 22nd Street, Philadelphia, Pa.

Libby, Dr. H. F., 687 Boylston Street, Boston, Mass.

Librarian, Bowdoin College Library, Brunswick, Maine.

Librarian, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania.

Librarian, Cambridge Public Library, Cambridge, Mass.

Librarian, City Library Association, Springfield, Mass.

Librarian, Enoch Pratt Free Library, of Baltimore City, Baltimore, Md.

Librarian, Hackley Public Library, Muskegon, Mich.

Librarian, Lowell City Library, Lowell, Mass.

Librarian (L. D. Carver), Main State Library, Augusta, Maine.

Librarian, Maiden Public Library, Maiden, Mass.

Librarian, Michigan State Library, Lansing, Mich.

Librarian (A. H. Chase), New Hampshire State Library, Concord, N.H.

Librarian (Gal breath), Ohio State Library, Columbus, Ohio.

Librarian, Peoria Public Library, Peoria, III.

Librarian, Public Library, Minneapolis, Minn.

Librarian, Public Library, Dover, N.H.

Librarian, Theological Seminary, Rochester, N.Y.

Librarian, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.

Librarian, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.

Librarian, University of Maine, Orono, Maine.

Lindsey, Judge Ben. B., 712-714 People's Bank Building, Denver, Colo.

Lindsley, J., c/o Milton, Mass.

Members and Associates.

463

♦Logan, W. S., 27 William Street, New York City.
Lombard]', C, 735 Irving Street, Portland, Oregon.
Long, George E., Box D, Jersey City, N.J.
Long, W. E., 1107 Second Avenue, Sterling, 111.
Lovett, George O., Madison, Kansas.
Lovett, Mrs. Watkins P., Mobley, Georgia.
Low, Clarence F., 14 Audubon Place, New Orleans, Louisiana
Lukens, Dr. Anna, "La Mariposa/1 297 Centre St, Pasadena, CaL

Winter— Jan-May. May-Dec— 485 Central Park W., New York

City.

Lurton, Judge H. H., U.S. Court of Appeals, Nashville, Tenn.
Mackenzie, George, M.D., Somerton, 35th Ward, Philadelphia, Pa.
Malusecki, Rev. Fr. Adalbert, 236 S. 12th Street, Reading, Pa.
Manley, R. M., 554 Springfield Avenue, Summit, New Jersey.
Marshall, Mrs. L. C, The Peabody, 102 Waverley Place, New York
City.

Martin, Mrs. A. W., 409 North E. Street, Tacoma, Wash.
Martin, Mrs. Emma H., 29 Lake View Park, Rochester, N.Y.
Mason, R. Osgood, M.D., 348 West 58th Street, New York City.
M'Beath, J. D., 176 Washington Street, Boston, Mass.
M*Clellan, Mrs. Clara D., 5536 Cornell Avenue, Chicago, 111.
M'Ewen, Alfred, 565 Dearborn Avenue, Chicago, 111.
M'Ewen, Mrs. D. C, 160 Stirling Place, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Means, Miss Evelyn B., Asheville, N.C.
Meissner, Mrs. de, 2928 P. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Mendenhall, Mrs. E. R., (summer) 29 West 3rd Street, Duluth,

Minn.; (winter) 5431 Green Street, Germantown, Phila., Pa
Mercer, Edward W., M.D., 157 North 15th Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
Meyer, J., 45 South 3rd Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
Michael, Mrs. Helen A., 35 West Cedar Street, Boston, Mass.
Miller, C. A., 30 Genesee Street, Utica, New York.
Miller, Mrs. Elizabeth C, "The Lindens," Haddonfield, N.J.
Miller, Miss Frank, 830 St Nicholas Avenue, New York City.
Miller, John W., Snohomish, Wash.
Millet, Josiah B., 150 Charles Street, Boston, Mass.
Milliken, Dr. Geo. G., 1524 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
Mills, Rev. Benj. Fay, Oakland, Cal.
Moffett, F. L, 204 Flour Exchange, Minneapolis, Minn.
Moore, Hon. Miles C, Walla Walla, Washington.
Morehouse, Mrs. Geo. E., 135 Cottage Avenue, Y
Morgan, Charles C, 6 Manchester Street, Nashi

igitized by GoOgle

464

Members and Associates.

[PAKT

Morgan, W. E., M.D., 2909 Groveland Avenue, Chicago, I1L
Morris, Charles, 2223 Spring Garden Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
Morris, Edward L., 97 Summer Street, Boston, Mass.
Morris, Mrs. F., The Vendome, Boston, Mass.
Murphy, Hon. Franklin, 1027 Broad Street, Newark, N.J.
Myrick, Mrs. Herbert, 205 Arrellaga Street, Santa Barbara, CaL
Neeld, A. D., 1300 Locust Street, Allegheny, Pa.
Newhall, Charles L., 125 Main Street, Southbridge, Mass.
Newton, Rev. R. Heber, D.D., Hotel Vendome, San Jos^, CaL
Nickerson, Mrs. R. C, 259 Madison Avenue, New York City.
Nims, F. A., Muskegon, Mich.
♦Norbury, Mrs J. F., Ellenville, Ulster Co., N.Y.
Norton, Mrs. F. L., 30 Gloucester Street, Boston, Mass.
*Nunn, Dr. Richard J., 5 East York Street, Savannah, Georgia.
Nye, Mrs. Walter B., Chestnut Hill, Mass.
Oakes, L. W., 100 Main Street, Bradford, Pa.
Odeneal, E. P., M.D., Jackson, Miss.
Oliver, G. S. J., Box 23, Santa Barbara, Cal.
Olmstead, Prof. E. W., 730 University Avenue, Ithaca, N.Y.
#Osborn, Gen. F. A., 236 Marlborough Street, Boston, Mass.
Ostby, Dr. O. A., Fairbault, Minn.

Pace, Prof. E. A., Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

Paddock, Frank S., 1 Paddock Building, Watertown, N.Y.

Park, Dr. Roswell, 510 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, N.Y.

Parker, Edward W., Little Rock, Ark.

Parsons, A. J., 1818 N Street, Washington, D.C.

Parsons, Herbert, Racquet and Tennis Club, 27 West 43rd Streefc,

New York City.
Parsons, John E., M.D., 6 Grove Street, Ayer, Mass.
Partridge, Mrs. Olive H., 216 South 31st Street, Omaha, Neb.
Pavey, Henry A., Hillsboro, Ohio.
Paxson, W. L., 22 Seventh Street, San Francisco, Cal.
Paxton, Miss Josephine E., 24 N. College Street, Carlisle, Pa
*Peabody, Mrs. A. P., 47 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Mass.
Peckham, Orville, First National Bank, Chicago, 111.
Pellew, Mrs. H. E., 1637 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, D.C.
Perkins, Albert S., 75 Milton Avenue, Hyde Park, Mass.
Perkins, Sydney B., 142 Meigs Street, Rochester, N.Y.
Perry, Hon. A. A., 291 Broadway, Somerville, Mass.
Perry, John G., M.D., 48 East 34th Street, New York City.
Perry, Ralph Barton, Ph.D., 20 Franklin St, Northampton, Mass.

Digitized by

XXV.]

Members and Associates.

465

Perry, Thos. S., 312 Marlborough St., Boston, Mass.
Perry, Mrs. T. S., 312 Marlborough St., Boston, Mass.
Peters, Mrs. F. A., 362 Marlborough Street, Boston, Mass.
Peterson, Mrs. Fred. H., 804 Yesler Way, Seattle, Wash.
Phillips, Mrs. J. G, Jun., 299 Berkeley Street, Boston, Mass.
Pierce, Prof. Arthur H., 20 Franklin Street, Northampton, Mass.
Pinchot, Gifford, 1615 RJ. Avenue, Washington, D.G
Pincoffs, P. A., 2 Stone Street, New York City.
Pitman, J. E., Andover, Mass.

Piatt, J. G, 333-335 Fourth Avenue, New York City.
Pomeroy, Mrs. Jennie B., Newport, N.Y.

Pope, Arthur U., 39, Hope College, Brown Univ., Providence, R.L
Pope, Miss Miriam, 30 Broadway, Beverley, Mass.
Pope, Miss Theodate, Box 176, Farmington, Conn.
Porter, H. F. J., Bethlehem Steel Co., 100 Broadway, New York
City.

♦Post, C W., Battle Creek, Michigan.
Powers, Mrs. Ellen F., c/o Townsend, Mass.

President, Board of Trustees, Free Public Library, Jersey City, N.J.
Prince, Dr. Morton, 458 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass.
Purington, W. A., Riverside, Cal.

Putnam, Miss Annie G, 63 Marlborough Street, Boston, Mass.
♦Putnam, Dr. Charles P., 63 Marlborough Street, Boston, Mass.
Putnam, George, 90 Ames Buildings, Boston, Mass.
Putnam, Dr. James J., 106 Marlborough Street, Boston, Mass.
Pyles, William F., Villa Americana, Estado de Sao Paulo, Brazil,.
S. America.

Quackenbos, John D., M.D., 331 West 28th Street* New York City.
*Quinby, Rev. John W., East Bridgewater, Mass.
♦Quincy, Josiah P., 82 Charles Street, Boston, Mass.
♦Radcliffe-Whitehead, Ralph, Santa Barbara, Cal.

Ransom, Frank H., 137 Main Street, Buffalo, N.Y.

Raynor, Charles, 2910 Girard Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa.

Rees, Mrs. Janet E. Runtz, 331 West 83rd Street, New York City.

Reid, Dr. H. A., 133 Mary Street, Pasadena, Cal.

Reiff, Josiah G, 247 5th Avenue, New York City.

Reynolds, Mrs. James B., 184 Eldridge Street, New York City.

Rice, Mrs. David Hall, 2 Wellington Terrace, Brookline, Mass.

Richardson, G. H., Pres. Iowa Valley State Bank, Belmond, Iowa.

Richardson, M. T., Box 236, Ridgewood, N.J.

Ridgon, Chas. Wm., c/o J. A. Ridgon, Hibernian Bank

Digitized by

466

Members and Associates.

[part

Roberts, 8. L., Canton, Miss.

Roberts, Miss M. Cady, 23 Maple Street, Arlington, Mass.
♦Bobbins, Miss A. M., 20 Mount Vernon Street, Boston, Mass.

Robinson, Mrs. C. B., 315 West Broadway, Louisville, Ky.

Robinson, Nelson L., 46 East 21st Street, New York City.

Roff, Frank E., Richfield Spa, N.Y.

Rogers, Dr. Oscar H., 346 Broadway, New York City.

Rolfe, A. G., The Hill School, Pottstown, Pa.

Rontey, A. M., 506 First Avenue, New York City.

Rose, Byron, North Attleborough, Mass.
♦Royce, Professor Josiah, 103 Irving Street, Cambridge, Mass.

Russell, Mrs. Henry E., 302 Berkeley Street, Boston, Mass.

Salter, Geo. F., 123 North 16th Street, E. Orange, N.J.

Saunders, W. E., B.S., E.M., 902 E. Chelten Avenue, Germantown, Pa.
♦Savage, Rev. Dr. M. J., Church of the Messiah Study, 34th Street
and Park Avenue, New York City.

Schlicht, Paul J., 149 Broadway, New York City.

Sears, Mrs. J. M., 12 Arlington Street, Boston, Mass.

Sedgwick, Mrs. H. D., Junr., 120 East 22nd St, New York City.

Sharp, Miss Kate, c/o Dresdener Bank, Pragerstr, Dresden, Germany.

Shaw, Miss Emma G., 2 Dunreath Street, Roxbury, Mass.

Sheets, J. C, c/o Cincinnati Sanitarium, College Hill, Station K,
Cincinnati, Ohio.

Sherman, Mrs. B. W., Box 404, Riverside, Cook Co., 111.

Shuman, Frank, 3400 Disston Street, Tacony, Philadelphia.

Slingerland, Mrs. Anna L., Kasson, Minn.

Smith, Miss Agnes, P.O. Box 340, Romeo, Michigan.
♦Smith, Philip Sherwood, 46 Johnson Park, Buffalo, N.Y.

Smith, Prof. W. Lincoln, Concord, Mass., and 360 Marlborough
Street, Boston (Winter).

Smith, Mrs. W. Hinckle, 2025 Locust Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
(Dec. 1-April 1) ; Box 102, Bryn Mawr, Pa, (April 1-Dec. 1).

Smith, Winfield, 1729 18th Avenue, Seattle, Wash.

Snyder, D. Lafayette, A.M.M.D., 1635 Girard Avenue Phila., Pa.

Sparhawk, Dr. Sam., Burlington, Vermont.

Sproull, Miss Kate C, Helena, Arkansas.

Stebbins, Mrs. John, Cazenovia, N.Y.

Steedman, J. G. W., M.A., M.D., 2803 Pine Street, St Louis, Mo.

Stein, Dr. S. G., Muscatine, Iowa.

Stephens, I. C, Carleton, Nebraska.

Stephenson, K P. 117 West 58th Street, New York.

Digitized by Google

XLV.]

Members and Associates.

467

Sterling, Mrs. E. C, Crescent Avenue, Redlands, Cal.

Stevens, Dr. J. F., Lincoln, Neb.

Stewart, J., P.O. Dept., Washington, D.C.

Stewart, Mrs. K. 6., Hillsborough, 111.

Stickney, Mrs. M. W., 107 College Street, Buffalo, N.Y.

Stockton, John P., 259 Washington Street, Jersey City, N.J.
♦Stokes, J. N. P., 118 East 22nd Street, New York City.
♦Stone, C. W., 86 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass.

Stone, Mrs. Richard, 18 Chestnut Street, Boston, Mass.

Stranahan, J. J., Supt. U.S. Fish Commissioners, Bullockville, Ga.

Street, Miss Ida M., 62 Farwell Avenue, Milwaukee, Wis.

Strickler, 0. C, M.D., Post Office Block, New Ulm, Minn.

Strong, Mrs. W. W., 528 Park Avenue, Kenosha, Wis.

Sturgis, Chas. R., 63 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass.

Swift, Wm. H., Wilmington, Del.

Symonds, Brandreth, M.D., 410 West 20th Street, New York City.
Tappan, Miss M. A., 44 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass.
Tate, F. M., Keokuk, Iowa.

Taylor, Richard Baker, Box 618, Norfolk, Virginia.
♦Thaw, A. Blair, M.D., Montecito, Cal.
♦Thaw, Mrs. A. Blair, Montecito, Cal.

Thompson, E. H., 10 Winthrop Street, Watertown, N.Y.

Thompson, Robert J., 1604 Wellington Avenue, Chicago, III.

Thomson, Dr. W., 1426 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa.

Thorndike, S. Lothrop, 62 Devonshire Street, Boston,' Mass.

Tower, C. B., 28 Albion Street, Hyde Park, Mass.

Tralles, Wm. A., 1189 West Avenue, Buffalo, N.Y.

Tucker, James W., Cooperstown, N.Y.

Tyler, Mrs. Moses Coit, 5 East Avenue, Ithaca, N.Y.

Tyson, Mrs. George, 314 Dartmouth Street, Boston, Mass.

Ullman, Mrs. Mary B., Mesa, Arizona.

Yeazey, I. Parker, Great Falls, Montana.

Yan Gieson, Dr. Ira, Pathological Institute, 1 Madison Avenue,
New York.

♦Van Norden, Rev. C, D.D., LL.D., 1827 H Street, Sacramento, Cal.
Wadsworth, E. A., Grinnell, Iowa.

Wait, Marshall, 5144 Madison Avenue, Hyde Park, Chicago, 111.
Walker, John A., 260 Montgomery Street, Jersey City, N.J.
Walsh, J. A., 1107 Commerce Street, Tacoma, Wash.
Ward, Mrs. L. A. Coonley, 620 Division Street, Chic*
Warren, Lyman Otis, 112 Academy Hill Road, Brigl

Digitized by

468

Members and Associates.

[part xlv.]

Washburn, Mrs. W. N., 3 Franklin Street, Greenfield, Mass.

Waters, John R, 46 Cedar Street, New York City.

Watson, Professor William, 107 Marlborough Street, Boston, Mass.

Watts, H. M., "The Press," Philadelphia, Pa.

Way-Allen, Mrs. K, The Wayside, Walpole, Mass.

Webb, Mrs. W. G., 34 Chestnut Street, Salem, Mass.

Weeks, Rufus W., Pocantico Hills, N.Y.

Wells, David W., M.D., The Westminster, Copley Square, Boston,
Mass.

Welsh, Mrs. Edward L., 1422 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
West, Redfield B., M.D., Fair Street, Guilford, Conn.
Wheeler, William, Concord, Mass.
Whipple, L. E., 272 Madison Avenue, New York City.
White, Miss Catherine P., c/o Alonzo Brinkman, General Delivery,
Mobile, Ala.

White, H. Lawrence, 75 Genesee Street, Utica, N.Y.
♦Whiting, Miss Lilian, The Brunswick, Back Bay, Boston, Mass.
* Whitman, Mrs. Henry, 77 Mount Vernon Street, Boston, Mass.

Whiton, Rev. J. M., Ph.D., 287 Fourth Avenue, New York City.

Wilbur, Mrs. Benjamin F., P.O. Box 65, Little Compton, R.I.

Willard, Miss Susanna, 3 Berkeley Place, Cambridge, Mass.

Williams, C. R, Indianopolis News, Indianopolis, Ind.

Williams, E. B., 354 Hall Street, Portland, Oregon.

Williams, William G., M.D., Westside, Claibourne Co., Mississippi.

Willis, Grant B., 1313 Logan Avenue, Canton, Ohio.
♦Wilmarth, Mrs. Mary H., The Auditorium, Chicago, 111.
♦Wing, Isaac H., Bayfield, Wisconsin.
♦Wood, John B., Box 662, Riverside, Cal.
♦Woodman, Walter, M.D., Hubbard Park, Cambridge, Mass.

Woodward, Fred E., Box 832, Washington, D.C.

Wyllys, Miss R., 18 Louisburg Square, Boston, Mass.

Wyman, Walter, M.D., The Richmond, Washington, D.C.

Wynne, Mrs. M. Y., 63 Marlborough Street, Boston, Mass.

Yandell, Miss Maud, 315 West Broadway, Louisville, Ky.

N.B. — Members and Associates of the American Branch are requested to
send notice of any change of address to the Secretary, 5 BoylsUm
Place, Boston, Mass,

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by Googl

Digitized by

Google

Digitized by

Google

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Proceedings, Volumes 16-17"

See other formats